Appalachia€¦ · speed have proven to be a vital foundation in addressing many other issues, including entrepreneurship development, tourism, telemedicine, distance learning, and

STATE MEETINGS REPORTFEBRUARY 2015

Appalachia Examining Changes to the Appalachian Region Since 1965

T H E N A N D N O W

Prepared by the Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness and West Virginia University for the Appalachian Regional Commission

1

It is impossible to drink water, flush a toilet, or drive down a highway in Appalachia

without seeing first-hand the result of an ARC investment.

- Common sentiment expressed at Stakeholder Meetings

2

Contents

About the ARC Focus Groups .................................................................................................... 3

Alabama ARC Focus Group Report............................................................................................ 9

Georgia ARC Focus Group Report ........................................................................................... 14

Kentucky ARC Focus Group Report ........................................................................................ 18

Maryland ARC Focus Group Report ........................................................................................ 22

Mississippi ARC Focus Group Report ...................................................................................... 26

New York ARC Focus Group Report ....................................................................................... 30

North Carolina ARC Focus Group Report ...……………………………………………….... 34

Ohio ARC Focus Group Report ................................................................................................ 38

Pennsylvania ARC Focus Group Report ................................................................................... 42

South Carolina ARC Focus Group Report ................................................................................ 46

Tennessee ARC Focus Group Report ....................................................................................... 50

Virginia ARC Focus Group Report ........................................................................................... 53

West Virginia ARC Focus Group Report ................................................................................. 57

Development Districts Association of Appalachia (DDAA) ARC Focus Group Report ......... 61

Acknowledgements……………………………………………………………………………65

3

About the ARC Focus Groups

Stakeholder meetings were held in all 13 ARC states to afford key stakeholders the opportunity

to provide insights about their region’s ARC-related activities (see Figure 1). Participants were

asked to provide feedback on several issues including:

The ARC-sponsored programs and other initiatives that made significant differences in their

community,

The community’s changing involvement with ARC over time,

How ARC can strengthen their programs and initiatives, and

Current and emerging issues that might motivate additional, future investments to alleviate

economic distress in Appalachia.

Each facilitated session lasted roughly two hours and involved roughly 10 to 20 participants.

Combined, over 220 people participated in these stakeholder meetings. This document contains

reports describing the substance of these conversations and the participants who attended.

Figure 1: ARC 50th Anniversary State Focus Groups

State Location Date

Tennessee Alcoa, TN May 16, 2014

North Carolina Boone, NC July 11, 2014

Development Districts Association of Appalachia

Marietta, OH July 28, 2014

West Virginia Charleston, WV August 8, 2014

Virginia Roanoke, VA September 18, 2014

Mississippi Tupelo, MS October 15, 2014

Kentucky Slade, KY October 21, 2014

Georgia Atlanta, GA October 22, 2014

Maryland Cumberland, MD October 28, 2014

Ohio Zanesville, OH November 14, 2014

New York Binghamton, NY December 8, 2014

Pennsylvania Lewisburg, PA December 9, 2014

Alabama Decatur, AL December 15, 2014

South Carolina Greenville, SC December 17, 2014

Several common themes emerged from these meetings. Overall, participants noted that ARC

investments have made a significant impact on the Region over the past half century. Several

factors contributed to this impact including the federal-state-regional partnerships, the flexibility

of ARC funding, and the ability for ARC investments to complement other projects. While much

4

has been accomplished over the past half century, challenges remain for the Appalachian Region

as it faces new and emerging issues. Below are the common themes that arose during the course

of the focus groups.

The ARC Model Stakeholders were quick to mention ARC’s catalyzing role in spurring regional

development. Regional stakeholders shared many examples of relatively small ARC

investments that planted the seed for significantly more investment and growth. In many

of these examples, later investments would not have occurred without the initial ARC

investment. This was especially true for many investments in the Region’s most

distressed communities, which have few accessible funding sources because of the

difficulty they have in raising even a modest amount of local matching funds.

ARC does more than fund projects—it also provides leadership, advocacy, planning,

research, and timely seed investments to advance these efforts, and has done so with

countless federal, state, non-profit, and private partners. This model has proven effective

over the past 50 years and may become even more important for achieving the Region’s

development goals in the future.

Stakeholders noted that over the past 50 years, ARC’s federal-state-local partnership

model has proven effective in helping Appalachian communities advance efforts with

great local support and impact.

ARC allows states and regions to set their own priorities and make their own decisions

about how ARC funding is used. This model has allowed states to shift their focus in

response to changing economic, political, or fiscal conditions. Diminished funds have led

a number of states to refocus their ARC investments from relatively expensive physical

infrastructure projects to business enterprise and tourism development, workforce

training, and health promotion activities. Many stakeholders see this new generation of

investments as having greater regional impact with the available funds.

5

Flexibility of ARC Funding

Local and regional stakeholders universally praise ARC’s flexibility. Unlike other

funding programs, ARC funding allows regions to think creatively about how best to

address pressing regional challenges.

Many stakeholders spoke of ARC’s role in supporting the expansion of health-care and

education facilities and the importance of those investments to the well-being of the

Region’s population. In many ways, these efforts helped address serious market failures

that would have significantly diminished the health and welfare of the Region’s residents.

Several focus groups participants said that economic transformation in Appalachia is less

about diversification, and more about forging entirely new economies. To help facilitate

this process, ARC has made investments that support these transformations. This includes

investing in the preparation of industrial sites, but also providing support for

entrepreneurship, tourism destination development and promotion, export expansion, and

business development programs, helping companies access programs that support

technology acceleration or advanced manufacturing processes.

State and Local Partnerships

ARC’s approach to development prioritizes partnerships with other federal, state, private,

and nonprofit partners. Therefore ARC funding aligns with and complements state

development initiatives, such as New York State’s Regional Economic Development

Councils and Kentucky’s Shaping Our Appalachian Region (SOAR) initiative.

Stakeholders from every state noted the importance of ARC support for the Region’s 73

local development districts (LDDs). Several focus group participants cited the critical

ability of LDDs to serve as an interagency connection between different service providers

and local jurisdictions within the Region; and to connect local residents and businesses

with resources at the state, regional, and federal levels, as well as with private resources.

ARC funding also allows the LDDs to assist communities with project development,

including assistance in grant writing for common funding sources. Without this support,

stakeholders maintained, many of the most successful ARC projects would never have

started.

6

ARC Investments Complement One Another

While the challenges facing Appalachia shift over time, ARC continues to lay the

groundwork for future development by making investments that are designed to advance

the Commission’s strategic goals. Few investments embody this more than those that

improve the Region’s broadband infrastructure. Efforts to increase broadband access and

speed have proven to be a vital foundation in addressing many other issues, including

entrepreneurship development, tourism, telemedicine, distance learning, and even in-

person education. Stakeholders throughout the Region noted that this was one of the most

prominent issues that required ARC attention and investment.

ARC investments in basic physical infrastructure, such as highways; water and

wastewater; and, more recently, broadband, have allowed Appalachian communities to

lay the basic foundation for additional development. Without this assistance, these

communities would be at a significant disadvantage in taking advantage of future

economic development opportunities.

ARC has made investments to advance education and training programs to prepare the

Region’s workers for the jobs of tomorrow. These investments are not only for curricula

and educational programs, but also for the construction of new facilities and the purchase

of training equipment, with an emphasis on assisting the Region’s most economically

distressed or underserved communities.

Place-making projects are another area where ARC investments not only create new

economic activity, but also preserve Appalachian culture and improve the Region’s

overall quality of life. Focus group participants noted several ARC-supported projects

that helped to preserve historic buildings or revitalize downtowns. Similarly, efforts to

develop local food systems are beneficial in that they can serve as an attraction to visitors

while creating new economic opportunities and healthier food options for residents.

Focus group participants noted that these kinds of ARC-supported projects contribute to

the Region’s tourism infrastructure.

ARC has invested in efforts to link individual projects, such as Virginia’s Crooked Road,

which connects heritage music venues and events; and the Great Allegheny Passage trail,

which provides bike access from Pittsburgh to Cumberland, Maryland. These projects

leverage many individual attractions to make the Region a more compelling destination

for visitors since they can take advantage of many attractions rather than just one.

7

Accomplishments and Challenges

Many communities said they are continuously trying to do more with less. In order to do

this, they must find ways to partner and leverage other public and private funding

opportunities. For example, ARC launched multi-year Global Appalachia grants to foster

member states’ rural trade development efforts, building on the State Trade and Export

Promotion Program of the U.S. Small Business Administration. Another example is

ARC’s participation in the Rural Jobs and Innovation Accelerator Challenge, in

partnership with the U.S. Economic Development Administration and the U.S.

Department of Agriculture.

Communities can find projects that fit into other ARC or regional investments. Tourism

and cultural projects provide a structure that allows regions to connect individual

attractions into a bigger idea that makes the region itself a more attractive destination for

visitors. By leveraging other investments, the sum of the parts becomes greater than the

whole and is an effective way of doing more with less.

Stakeholders recognize the importance of prioritizing ARC funding based on need. This

does not mean, however, that the classification of counties by distress levels is free from

challenges. For instance, persistent pockets of poverty can remain even in counties that

overall are performing well relative to other counties. Additionally, while not a common

occurrence, fluctuations in county economic status from year to year can also pose

challenges for communities. Given that a change in status results in a change in matching

funds requirements, this can introduce some long-term planning difficulties for some

counties.

Finally, stakeholders also suggested that ARC recognize that its impact has been well

beyond what might be easily measured. As noted in several states and in similar ways, it

is impossible to drink water, flush a toilet, or drive down a highway without seeing first-

hand the result of an ARC investment. Given this significant impact on the Region, many

stakeholders thought that ARC should more actively promote its accomplishments in

ways similar to what other agencies do (e.g., signs that read “This road was paid for in

part through ARC Funds”).

8

Figure 2: The Appalachian Region

9

Alabama ARC Focus Group Report

On December 15th

, 2014 key ARC stakeholders in the state of Alabama met to discuss the impact

of ARC investments in their communities. The Alabama Department of Economic and

Community Affairs (ADECA) helped to organize the meeting that was hosted by the North

Central Alabama Regional Council of Governments in Decatur, Alabama. Participants were

asked to give their input on several broad issues including:

ARC-sponsored programs use in their region and community,

Changes in ARC-sponsored programs and funding over time,

Notable and important ARC investments, and

Current and emerging issues that might motivate additional, future investments.

Overall there was enthusiastic support for ARC programs and investments. ARC remains vitally

important to the communities it serves, and this is especially true for its most rural communities.

Additionally, the consistency and predictability of ARC funding and services was cited as being

critical to assisting rural and distressed communities. Participants also noted that among the

reasons ARC investments have been impactful to the state are its ability to let investment

priorities be “locally-driven” and the Commission staff really “cares” about Appalachia Alabama

and the Region’s ability to improve the economy and quality of life for residents, communities,

and businesses throughout the area.

Current role of ARC funding

Participants noted that ARC funding plays a critical role in getting projects off the ground and as

a tool for addressing core economic development challenges that provide the foundation for later

development. Among the range of projects that ARC investments continue to help fund include

water and sewer, education, healthcare, business access to capital via revolving loan funds,

workforce training and community development. These investments make securing additional

investment and activity easier for distressed communities with minimal access to resources.

Not all impactful investments require large outlays of funds, noted participants. A fruitful effort

underway in the state includes ARC projects in Madison and Jefferson counties on integrating

local food systems by partnering with local industries, schools, food banks and other community

based organizations. This is a part of the Appalachian Regional Commission’s larger effort of

“Growing the Appalachian Food Economy,” which is meant to foster economic diversification

and revitalization by promoting local food systems and sustainable agriculture. In Alabama,

participants discussed how this effort held enormous promise matching local growers with local

buyers and that the project needed the boost provided through ARC to get it connected. An

effort like this creates jobs and also helps with health, as the Region has a high incidence of

obesity.

10

The collaboration model established by ARC for its investments is also bearing fruit in high-tech

business development. For example, the Economic Development Partnership of Alabama

Foundation, an ARC partner, collaborates with seven research universities in Alabama to

promote high-growth and innovative start-up companies. Collectively they have established

Alabama “Launchpad”, which provides startup capital and expert guidance to budding

companies. Alabama ARC supports such efforts through its participation in Revolving Loan

funds and Angel funds in Appalachian Alabama.

Additionally, ARC investments have complemented many important state initiatives to develop

communities and grow the economy. For instance, ARC has been heavily involved with

supporting the work of the Alabama State Energy Office, which is working on a State Energy

Program to increase the use of renewable energy and promote energy efficiency in Alabama.

State officials also noted how the Alabama ARC program is making an important contribution to

the successful execution of the Alabama State Department of Education’s Plan 2020 to improve

student growth and achievement, increase the graduation rate, close the achievement gap and

increase the number of high school graduates that are college and/or career-ready and compete in

the global economy. The state’s international trade and export development efforts in

Appalachia Alabama are also being supported by ARC. The flexibility of ARC funding made

these types of investments possible.

ARC funding also continues to play a crucial role for many rural and/or distressed counties

because there remains tremendous pockets of need, which are often isolated. Several participants

described ARC as being the champion in the rural development world. Helping to form this

perspective were not just singular projects but the continuing commitment to fund the local

planning councils, which are on the front lines to make things happen in Alabama. The funds

provided to the Local Development Districts are important because rural areas often lack the

staff capacity and resources to meet all their planning needs. The LDD funding provided by ARC

allows for consistent and reliable planning and government service to these rural counties.

Impacts of past ARC investments

At the time of its launch, ARC sought to bring the Appalachian Region to parity with the rest of

the country. While the work is far from finished, the focus group participants thought that

Alabama’s Appalachian communities had made meaningful progress toward fulfilling that goal.

ARC investments allowed many rural residents access to clean water and sewer, and helped to

put in place an infrastructure to support industry that created local employment opportunities.

ARC has also played a leadership role in Alabama in bridging non-traditional economic

development issues such as local food, healthcare, and alternative energy with traditional

economic development activities.

Past ARC investments in Alabama have worked in building the foundation and capacity to

provide needed services to residents. Among the most basic, water and sewer investments have

11

been an important part of ARC investments over the years, which participants agreed “have

come a long way over the past 30-40 years due to ARC.” But ARC has done much more than

this. For instance, ARC funds were used to purchase cargo cranes at the International Intermodal

Center (IIC) at Huntsville International Airport and also helped to establish the Jetplex Industrial

Park. Participants discussed how these investments helped open things up economically at the

Huntsville International Airport to the benefit of the entire region. At this global logistics park,

rail, air, and highway all come together which attracts major companies. The Jetplex Industrial

Park, which opened in 1974, currently has more than 60 tenants, 24-hour U.S. Customs services,

USDA inspectors, freight forwarders and a Foreign Trade Zone. The IIC, Jetplex and airport

occupy more than 6,000 acres of the 10,000-acre master plan.

Perhaps the biggest economic development advancement for the Region in the past 50 years has

been the growth of the state’s automotive industry. Participants noted ARC’s role in this as well,

such as funding a water line from Tuscaloosa to the Mercedes-Benz plant. Alabama now has

three major international auto manufacturers: Mercedes-Benz, Hyundai and Honda. Mercedes-

Benz is located in Vance, which is in two ARC counties, Tuscaloosa and Bibb, while Honda

Manufacturing of Alabama is in Lincoln, which is in the ARC county of Talladega. Other ARC

counties in Alabama also benefit from these automotive manufacturers through the Tier 1, Tier 2

and Tier 3 supplier businesses serving them.

While never a large component of the total funding package, ARC funding—both in the past and

present—has served as important seed funding to get larger projects started. Several participants

offered examples demonstrating the importance of early ARC investments. For instance, ARC

funded the purchase of diagnostic equipment for the area’s one stop center for justice. This

center started as a unique concept, and is one of only two in Alabama – for those who are victims

of abuse, instead of going to hospital or police, have all of their care and needs met in one

location. Others have leveraged ARC investments to create revolving loan funds to offer area

businesses access to needed capital. Several of these loan funds have turned small initial ARC

investments into multi-million dollar capital funds for the ongoing benefit of the local economy.

One example was given of funds going to a business filling a vital need for physician assistants

in the Region and that business grew quickly to 15 jobs from 4, and they were able to pay back a

three year loan in a year and a half.

ARC investments in highway infrastructure are also seen as crucial past investments as they

provide important connections. This is particularly true for rural, mountainous counties where

roads are limited in number, difficult to build, and expensive to maintain. This can make rural

living even more expensive and difficult. ARC Highway funds are therefore seen as important to

expanding and strengthening the Region’s highway infrastructure. Participants noted past road

improvements as critical for the area but also looked forward to the final completion and opening

of the Appalachian Development Highway System (ADHS) Corridors X and V which will offer

an important contribution to continued economic growth in Appalachian Alabama. ADHS

12

Corridors X (future Interstate 22) and V will provide major new connections to Memphis,

Tennessee in the west and Atlanta, Georgia to the east.

Moving forward

Participants were all adamant about the continued importance of ARC funding to the state. As a

result, they would like to see current investments continued, particularly as they relate to

infrastructure-related investments such as water, sewer and highways. Although participants

noted here that more requests are now for industrial access roads and maintenance; while

water/sewer is usually for capacity increase or new projects, not maintenance. However with

ARC funds, participants noted that in some places infrastructure projects are stalled due to

trouble with meeting matching fund requirements.

In addition to these ongoing investments, the participants expressed general consensus about

expanding investments in several other emerging areas. For instance, developing the

Appalachian Region’s human capital and health and wellness efforts was viewed as increasingly

crucial. Expanded broadband access was mentioned by several participants as a particular area of

investment that needs continuous attention from ARC. Broadband potentially supports many

other priority areas including entrepreneurship, home-based businesses, and the overall ability to

compete in the global economy.

Continuing to invest in education funding, including technology and workforce programs for

schools was another important potential focus area for ARC investments. State officials noted

how workforce development and training efforts will focus on high growth and high demand

occupations, including green and renewable energy related occupations and industrial technology

and maintenance specialties related to Alabama’s specific industrial sectors, including auto

manufacturing. Workforce development was seen by participants as helping with the problem of

youth brain drain by keeping talented people in the Region rather than leaving to find jobs

elsewhere.

The discussion often noted the need to generally improve the quality of life within the region in

order to retain and assist current residents, as well as attract new residents, especially young

workers. Connected to this, creating places where people want to live and spend time was seen

as a vital condition for success in other strategies related to tourism and entrepreneurship and

others. A participant noted how important it was to maintain a group of 20-50 year old residents

in your community to develop future leaders and support services like volunteer fire

departments. Other participants also noted the need to work on job access by getting workers out

of impoverished communities and getting them to job opportunities in the surrounding

communities. Many residents need viable transportation options – having no money for vehicles

and poorly developed public transit systems. Also prevalent was the need to train the workforce

to have soft skills (e.g., timeliness, drug- free).

13

Going forward, health care is a growing concern for the citizens of Appalachian Alabama.

Challenges included low levels of dentists per capita; a lack of hospital-affiliated substance

abuse treatment services; a lack of hospital-affiliated psychiatric services; and a lack of obstetric

care, particularly in economically distressed counties. On the business development side,

finding suitable land is a big issue for industrial expansion as landowners want to keep land. In

other areas, it’s topographic. However, throughout the conversation on future investments,

participants noted how difficult it is to predict, and that a great benefit is the flexibility of ARC

funding, as that flexibility (unlike many other funding sources) allowed them to effectively

respond to their region’s many critical development challenges and to future challenges as they

arise. They also encouraged ARC to keep fostering a climate for creative ideas to take hold,

especially if they can create change in the way things are done, and maintaining the wide range

of projects that can be funded.

Meeting Attendees

Lucas Blankenship, Top of Alabama Regional Council of Governments

Joey Hester, North Central Alabama Regional Council of Governments

Brenda Jones, Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs

Keith Jones, Northwest Alabama Council of Local Governments

Jimmy Lester, Alabama Department of Economic and Community Affairs

Michael Mills, North Central Alabama Regional Council of Governments

Yvonne Murray, Regional Planning Commission of Greater Birmingham

Jeffrey Pruitt, North Central Alabama Regional Council of Governments

Nancy Robertson, Top of Alabama Regional Council of Governments

Jeff Schwartz, Appalachian Regional Commission

Marilyn Smith, Northwest Alabama Council of Local Governments

Max Snyder, West Alabama Regional Commission

14

Georgia ARC Focus Group Report

On October 22nd, 2014 key ARC stakeholders in the state of Georgia met to discuss the impact

of ARC investments in their communities. The Georgia Department of Community Affairs

helped to organize and host the meeting in Atlanta, Georgia. Participants were asked to give their

input on several broad issues including:

ARC-sponsored programs used in their region and community,




Overall, focus group participants expressed enthusiastic support for ARC programs and

investments. Participants regularly noted the importance of the program’s flexibility and how

that flexibility allowed them to find creative solutions for projects with no obvious funding

stream. They also noted the importance of the support provided by the state’s Local

Development Districts (LDDs), the State and ARC’s Washington office, and how that expertise

was vital to ensuring that projects not only got off the ground, but were also completed.


Georgia has historically used its ARC funding to make investments to address key development

challenges, often related to basic economic development infrastructure. Through the Appalachian

Highway Development System, ARC has helped to fund the development of Corridor A (GA

400, US 19, GA 515, US 76) and A1 (GA 400, US 19) that have improved the connection

between Atlanta and North Georgia.

Many participants cited examples of ARC-supported water, sewer and access road projects that

were instrumental in creating sites for new businesses or ensuring that existing employers can

remain competitive in their existing locations. In partnership with other funders, ARC

investments in access road construction paved the way for an expansion of the King’s Hawaiian

Bakery in Hall County and subsequent expansion. Similarly, ARC investments in upgrades to the

sewer system in Barrow County allowed the Atlantic Engineering Group to retain 60 jobs and

create 50 new jobs in Braselton.

Participants all noted that ARC investments were unique because they provided important seed

money for projects with no guaranteed return. Relative to many other funding sources, ARC

funds allow communities to take some risks and be occasionally speculative with their economic

development projects. Few projects are as illustrative of this as ARC’s involvement with the

Chateau Elan Winery. In 1982, ARC partnered with the Town of Braselton to expand the town’s

existing water and sewer system to accommodate what at the time was a two person winery. This

initial seed money, as well as subsequent investments, laid the foundation for what has become a

15

3,500 acre world class resort, conference center and leisure destination. None of this was

guaranteed in 1982, but these early somewhat speculative investments in Chateau Elan led to

over 300 jobs and significant local, state and Federal tax revenues.

In addition to providing key seed money, ARC funding has also filled important holes in the

current funding landscape. For instance, participants noted the growing need to preserve historic

landmarks within their communities, and the importance of these vestiges in defining the

community’s cultural identity and contribution. Given the flexibility of ARC funding,

communities can develop projects that can address some of these issues and ARC funds have

been used for a number of tourism projects throughout Appalachian Georgia. The purchase of

four-acres of land in Gainesville, Georgia for the development of Paradise Gardens in 2011 has

been important for that area as it has allowed it to emerge as a leading folk artist site. Other

tourism-related projects include restoring three barns in Blairsville, Georgia on the property

formerly owned by Georgia poet, Byron Herbert Reece in 2005; the creation of a phone-guided

tour and related signage of the Shields-Etheridge Farm in Jefferson, Georgia in 2010; and

preserving two slave cabins in Snellville, Georgia in 2010. Developing these attractions

strengthens the ability of these communities to grow their revenues from tourism.

A number of Georgia communities have used ARC funding as part of their efforts to revitalize

their downtown. For instance, ARC investments helped to renovate Jackson County’s historic

courthouse which has been a key element in revitalizing Jefferson’s downtown. ARC

investments in the renovation of the Somerville theater has also had an impact on that

community as that facility is now capable of hosting conferences and other events. These

projects are important to their communities because they make them more attractive places to

live and therefore serve the dual purpose of attracting new residents and retaining existing

residents.

ARC investments have also made a difference beyond just economic and business development.

ARC investments have also helped to strengthen the Region’s education and health

infrastructure. Construction of Lanier Technical College’s Manufacturing Development Center

(MDC) in Gainesville, Georgia was in part made possible by an ARC grant towards sewer

construction. Similarly, ARC was one of the investors in the construction of Northeast Georgia

Health System’s Gainesville Campus. This project not only increased the Region’s access to

healthcare services, but it also created 450 jobs in the process. ARC funds, in conjunction with

USDA Rural Development funds, were also utilized to improve sewer improvements for

Cedartown’s new hospital in Polk County.

ARC has also invested in non-infrastructure efforts such as programs that address the Region’s

substance abuse problems. Developing the Region’s local food system is another way in which

ARC funds have been leveraged to improve the Region’s overall wellbeing. ARC helped to fund

the Northwest Georgia Regional Commission’s North Georgia Local Food Assessment Guide.

16

This guide allowed the Commission to identify and assemble the right partners to move their

local foods efforts forward. It gave the Region a roadmap from which to begin, for instance, farm

to school programs by working with Georgia Organics.

Pulling these kinds of projects together often requires a level of capacity greater than what many

smaller communities (particularly those with fewer than 5,000 residents) are capable.

Participants noted that ARC investments in the Region’s Local Development Districts have been

vital to ensuring that these small, rural communities received consistent service in areas such as

grant writing, project development and basic community planning. ARC has also helped to

expand the GIS capacity within the LDDs, which better enables them to undertake master

planning throughout the Region. In addition to the support within the Region, participants were

grateful for the assistance that they receive from ARC representatives both in Georgia and in

Washington, DC. Assistance related, for instance, to the sharing of best practice or for preparing

successful grants and applications is greatly appreciated.

Moving forward

Diminished resources have led to a shift in focus. While infrastructure projects remain an

important element in Georgia’s ARC program, growing costs and fewer resources have led

communities to look more to other funding sources like the Georgia Environmental Finance

Agency to fund traditional water and sewer projects. Consequently, Georgia’s communities are

now looking at other types of projects for which to invest their ARC resources. These projects

have been related to downtown revitalization, historic preservation, tourism, or local foods. What

many of these projects have in common is that they do not have obvious funders for which to

turn. As a result, the flexibility of ARC’s funding allows local communities the opportunity to

find locally-driven solutions to their challenges, rather than trying to shoehorn their efforts into a

more rigid state or federal funding program.

Moving forward, participants expressed great interest in expanding and strengthening the

Region’s broadband capacity. This is not only needed to support economic and entrepreneurial

development, but also to improve the Region’s quality of life both in rural locations and

revitalized downtowns. Aside from broadband, workforce training and retention are ongoing

challenges, and participants were particularly concerned about youth leaving the Region if they

cannot find the right opportunities.

Participants noted several ways in which Georgia might refine its ARC program. Participants

expressed a desire for more flexible timing for applications, possibly two or more application

dates as the need for assistance can occur at any time throughout the year. Several communities

also noted that they had communities in their county that did not reflect the attainment status of

their counties. These persistent pockets of poverty are therefore more difficult to serve using

ARC funds. Finally, several participants noted that ARC needs more visibility for its efforts not

17

only for what ARC resources and programs can be used for, but also to draw attention to what

they have already accomplished.

Meeting Attendees

J.R. Charles, Hambersham County Economic Development Department

Gretchen Corbin, Georgia Department of Community Affairs

Jennifer Dees, Town of Braselton

Jim Dove, Northeast Georgia Regional Commission

Beth Eavenson, Elbert County, Joint Development Authority of Northeast Georgia

Jeff Ellis, City of Rockmart (Written Input)

Bill Fann, Cedartown, GA (Written Input)

Heather Feldman, Georgia Mountains Regional Commission

Pat Graham, Barrow County Chairperson

Jon Herschell, City of Cornelia

Guy Herring, Barrow County Economic and Community Development

Jim Henry, Northwest Georgia Regional Commission (Written Input)

Jerry Hood, Town of Braselton

David Howerin, Northwest Georgia Regional Commission (Written Input)

Julie Meadows, Northwest Georgia Regional Commission (Written Input)

Kostas Skordas, Appalachian Regional Commission

Phil Smith, Georgia Department of Community Affairs

Saralyn Stafford, Georgia Department of Community Affairs

Bob Thomas, Elbert County Manager

Burke Walker, Northeast Georgia Regional Commission

Mayor John Weaver, City of Jasper (Written Input)

Dan Wright, City of Ringgold (Written Input)

18

Kentucky ARC Focus Group Report

On October 21st, 2014 key ARC stakeholders in the state of Kentucky met to discuss the impact

of ARC investments in their communities. The Kentucky Department for Local Government

(DLG) helped organize the meeting which was hosted by Natural Bridge State Resort Park in

Slade, Kentucky. Participants were asked to give their input on several broad issues including:

ARC-sponsored programs used in their region and community.

Changes in ARC-sponsored programs and funding over time.

Notable and important ARC investment, and


Overall, participants were in agreement that ARC has played a central role in addressing many of

Eastern Kentucky’s development challenges. The impacts of ARC investments are visible

throughout Appalachian Kentucky, as they have helped strengthen the Region’s connectivity,

improve the health of its citizens, create economic opportunities, and bring its infrastructure

closer to parity with the rest of the country. In spite of this progress, focus group participants

noted that much work remained and that ARC remains relevant and vital in moving forward.


Over the past half century, few places have been as impacted by ARC and ARC investments than

Appalachian Kentucky. Focus group participants all recognized this legacy, and its

transformative impact on the Region. To paraphrase one participant, you cannot drive down a

highway, drink a glass of water or flush a toilet in Eastern Kentucky without seeing the impact of

ARC investments. These investments in the Region’s basic infrastructure have been striking.

While investments in water and sewer systems are now typified by their influence on industrial

development, in Eastern Kentucky these early ARC investments brought clean drinking water

and indoor plumbing to people who previously lacked even these basic services. It was noted that

in some communities, ARC investments helped facilitate basic garbage disposal as well.

ARC investments have also reduced the Region’s overall isolation. A quick scan of an interstate

map shows that the Region lacks any real interstate access, and this minimal access severely

limits its economic development potential. Roads constructed in part with ARC funding like the

Bert T. Combs Mountain Parkway (Corridor I) or the Country Music Parkway (US 23-Corridor

B) near Pikeville have created real development opportunities for previously disconnected,

isolated regions of Appalachia.

ARC investments have also improved the overall wellness of the Region’s population by

improving access to healthcare. The Region struggles with higher than average rates of diabetes,

obesity and cancer. ARC investments are evident by the construction of health clinics and by

funding programs that address core healthcare challenges. For instance, ARC has invested in

19

Morehead State’s Center for Health Education and Research which has increased the number of

nurses and radiographic technicians in the Region. In partnership with the University of

Kentucky, Morehead State has also been actively involved in the Appalachian Rural Dental

Education Partnership Program. Oral healthcare is an often overlooked issue, but can have an

important influence on people’s wellbeing. This program not only provides people access to oral

health screening by dental students from the University of Kentucky, but it also supports

awareness programs for parents and children about the importance of oral health. Several

participants also noted that in addition to improving the overall wellbeing of the Region’s

population, healthcare also provided an important source of jobs and regional employment.

Overall regional wellbeing requires economic opportunities for its citizens. Participants noted

that ARC had also been instrumental in the development of industrial sites that have laid the

foundation for job opportunities in the Region in areas such as advanced manufacturing and

distribution. For workers to take advantage of these job opportunities they must have the proper

skills, and as a result participants did praise ARC investments that helped build a campus of

Ashland Community and Technical College on the grounds of EastPark industrial site. This

campus will provide easier access to training for companies and workers at EastPark.

Participants noted a number of workforce and training programs where ARC investments made a

significant difference. For instance, they noted ARC’s involvement in the expansion of the

University of Pikeville or the creation of the University Center of the Mountains in Hazard. The

latter of which provides residents access to programs available through eight different

institutions of higher education. Participants also noted the importance of ARC investments in

youth programs like Roger’s Scholars or Morehead State’s efforts to promote Science,

Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM) education.

For all of these efforts, ARC funding has rarely been the sole source of funding. However,

participants noted that ARC funding often served as important seed funding that got a project off

the ground or allowed communities to leverage other funds. In other instances, it may have

served as closing funds that ensured that a project was completed. They also noted how the

flexibility of funding allowed them to address challenges in a way not possible through other

funding sources. Participants appreciate this flexibility as it enables communities to create

locally driven solutions to regional challenges.

In addition, financial support for Kentucky’s Area Development Districts was also appreciated.

This support allows the ADDs to provide consistent and reliable support to communities that

generally lack any real capacity to write grants or develop projects. It also allows them to

provide basic GIS or planning services to these communities who are often unable to afford

them. At a broader level, focus group participants also praised ARC staff in Washington for

providing them with additional expertise or being able to connect them to other experts

20

elsewhere in the Appalachian region or beyond. This expertise can help strengthen the design of

different projects and improve the likelihood that they will be successful and impactful.

Moving forward

While much progress has been made toward achieving ARC’s mission over the past 50 years, the

focus group participants were in general consensus that much work remains. By way of

illustration, one participant noted that Kentucky now has three times as many distressed counties

as West Virginia, yet in 1990 it was the same. Therefore there is a need to complete the job that

was started, be it in the highway infrastructure or achieving greater parity in health outcomes.

This will require continuing ongoing infrastructure investments, but also finding creative

approaches to addressing other ongoing regional challenges like public or workforce

transportation, meeting the care needs of an aging population, improving the Region’s affordable

housing stock, or battling health issues such as obesity or substance abuse.

The work remains, but participants were aware and realistic about the challenges that lie ahead.

Most notably, the resources are not available in the way they once were. As a result, it is

important for the Region to leverage as many different opportunities as possible. This will

require regional stakeholders to forge new partnerships and effectively communicate in order to

avoid duplication. This will involve effectively leveraging the opportunities provided through

Community Development Block Grants (CDBG) investments or Kentucky’s Promise Zone. It

will also require finding ways to activate private investors or local foundations. Participants

noted that the state’s Shaping Our Appalachian Region (SOAR) effort provided an effective

venue to not only develop these partnerships, but also to have a larger discussion about the future

of the Region. Participants expressed gratitude for the Federal Co-Chair contributing an

additional $750,000 to support the SOAR initiative.

One of the clear benefits of the SOAR initiative has been a larger discussion about the Region’s

future. The Region’s economy is undergoing significant transformation at the moment as the

accelerating decline of the coal industry has removed one of its major economic drivers. While

some participants noted that Appalachian Kentucky needed a more diversified economy, others

responded by saying that the Region needed to create an entirely new economy. In either case,

ARC can play an important role in this transformation through its support for entrepreneurial

support efforts or tourism development initiatives. It can also promote economic growth through

continued investments in industrial site development and workforce training. Moreover, future

investments must continue to address issues of connectivity and isolation. As a result, expanding

and strengthening the Region’s broadband infrastructure will be vital for the future.

The Region must also continue to build capacity and develop regional leaders and continued

support for the ADDs remains one important element of this effort. However, participants also

noted for ARC to continue to play an important role in the Region’s future there needs to be

more new leaders from the Appalachian region stepping forward to advocate on the Region’s

21

behalf. Congressman Hal Rogers has been a great advocate for the Region, but participants noted

that more leaders will be required to promote these efforts over the next fifty years.

Meeting Attendees

Rocky Adkins, Majority Leader of Kentucky House of Representatives

Wayne Andrews, Morehead State University (Phone interview)

David Barber, Kentucky Speaker’s Office

Amy Barnes, Kentucky Department for Local Government

Al Cross, Institution for Rural Journalism at University of Kentucky

Ron Daley, Hazard Community and Technical College

Scott Hamilton, Appalachian Regional Commission

Peter Hillie, Mountain Association for Community Economic Development

Jerry Johnson, University of Louisville

Lonnie Lawson, The Center for Rural Development

Lynn Latrell, Kentucky Department for Local Government

Hilda Legg, Legg Strategies

Paul Patton, Former Governor of Kentucky (Phone Interview)

Vonda Poynter, Federation of Appalachian Housing Enterprises

Roger Recktenwald, Kentucky Association of Counties

Jerry Rickett, Kentucky Highlands Investment Corporation

Sandra Runyon, Big Sandy Area Redevelopment District

Peggy Satterly, Kentucky Department for Local Government


Al Smith, Former Appalachian Regional Commission Federal Co-Chair

Greg Stumbo, Speaker of the Kentucky House of Representatives

Jim Ward, Letcher County Judge/Executive

Tony Wilder, Kentucky Department for Local Government

Gail Wright, Gateway Area Development District

22

Maryland ARC Focus Group Report

On October 28th

, 2014 key ARC stakeholders in the state of Maryland met to discuss the impact

of ARC investments in their communities. Maryland Department of Planning’s Al Feldstein

helped to organize the meeting that was held at the Allegheny Arts Council in Cumberland,

Maryland. Participants were asked to give their input on several broad issues including:





Overall ARC investments are valued by members of the local community and are seen as an

important resource for the community moving forward. Participants were especially appreciative

of ARC’s ability to catalyze regional collaboration and by the service and leadership provided by

ARC federal and state representatives.


Focus group members recognize the interrelatedness of ARC investments and appreciate ARC’s

wide-ranging mission. Focus group participants highlighted the flexibility of investments and

ability to make small, focused investments. ARC funds also frequently provide the leverage

necessary to complete key projects. Many local leaders note that ARC’s requirement to leverage

multiple resources has helped them accomplish their mission – and ARC’s matching investments

often facilitated this leverage.

The ARC mission of “expanding the capacity of the people” gives room for a wide range of

investment opportunities. Furthermore, local leaders noted that the Maryland’s ARC Program

Manager played an important role in educating new partners (especially those not located within

the Region) about the issues and challenges facing Maryland’s Appalachian communities. Focus

group participants also praised federal and state ARC staff. Furthermore, their institutional

knowledge made the grant process work very smoothly.

ARC investments have also played an important role in the Region’s development. It offers the

flexibility of funding that allows local partners to develop creative solutions to local problems.

The Region’s economic development leaders play a particularly important role in Maryland in

managing the process of determining whether an ARC investment makes sense for a project.

These three organizations serve as the go-between for marketing the project and helping

organizations with the application process. These organizations know that the ARC cannot fund

every project that comes along, so the economic development organizations help to identify

which investments are likely to have the largest impact. State and local leaders consider

23

themselves stewards of the ARC funds and take great pride in the fact that their investments are

effective and efficient.

Another way that ARC makes an impact on the community is through the connections that it

facilitates. ARC’s model for leveraged investment has spurred stronger collaboration amongst

federal, state, local and private sector partners who have been forced to work together in order to

secure these investments. For example, the Region’s approach to supporting entrepreneurship

came about through ARC facilitated collaboration among area colleges. Local leaders noted that

this was less about the financial resources and more about the leadership and connections that

ARC resources helped to facilitate.

The Allegheny County Human Resources Development Commission provides another

compelling example of how a local organization can benefit from ARC’s leverage and

networking capabilities. HRDC staff described how the agency was asked to organize a thirteen-

day medical clinic, with over a thousand people receiving medical services. A five-figure ARC

grant helped to leverage more than $1 million in local investment. Numerous people at the focus

group session participated in a collaborative eight month planning process.


Initially, ARC investments in Maryland focused on housing and traditional infrastructure such as

water, sewers, and access roads. More recently, ARC has shifted to a greater share of its

Maryland investment to supporting the provision of high speed broadband designed to better

connect the Region to the wider world, much in the same way that highway investments once

did. Maryland’s greatest legacy includes the construction of I-68, which has been instrumental in

connecting the Regions east and west of the Appalachians through the Cumberland Gap as well

as connecting communities across a once isolated region. For large infrastructure projects like

this, small investments from ARC may not seem significant at first, but they can be a key factor

in catalyzing a larger investment or accomplishing regional goals. For smaller projects, the

investments in access roads and related infrastructure have helped to open up key sites to

development along the Region’s interstate corridor.

The Region’s educational institutions have also seen substantial expansions due to ARC

investment. For instance, Frostburg State University expanded its nursing program from four to

over 300 students with some assistance from ARC. Local public schools expanded their

broadband infrastructure with help from ARC grants. In addition, local community colleges and

technical schools have used ARC to develop new training programs and purchase equipment.

Local leaders also cited a number of “legacy” investments made by ARC that have helped to

redefine the Region. For instance, the bike trail from Pittsburgh to Washington and the related

Trail Town Program have been a boon for local business. The trail brings in people from all

over the world to spend money at local businesses. It also has helped to attract major events,

24

including local cancer walks and kidney rides. Those events have helped to raise awareness

about the Region and bring the community together. One example cited of this impact involved

a tourist on the trail was so impressed by the Town of Hancock that he bought and rehabbed a

building there.

Moving forward

While ARC has significantly impacted Maryland’s Appalachian communities, the organizations

delivering services to local residents see a variety of future investment opportunities. ARC has

long helped smaller communities meet basic water, wastewater and storm water infrastructure

needs. These issues remain important, but participants also believe that ARC funds could better

be used to leverage more private investment. This will be important in the area of

telecommunications where rapidly changing technology will require continued investment. An

expanded broadband infrastructure will be required to support greater tele-medicine, or distance

learning. In addition, the leaders noted the need for programs aimed at attracting and retaining

quality healthcare professionals.

Many participants also described the importance of broadband and related infrastructure

improvements to support post-secondary education in the Region. In fact, continued investment

in education was a recurring theme during the meeting. There was an agreement that the

Region’s sparse and declining population affects the area’s ability to make a case for greater

public investments. Consequently, the state’s school funding formula does not favor local

schoolchildren because the area’s declining population has led to budget cutting for schools and

limiting opportunities for the educational system to invest as a way to remain competitive.

Related to this last point, local leaders believe that it is vital that the Region attract and retain

young people, and suggested a number of ways to provide education, public transportation, arts

and culture, and other amenities. Broadband infrastructure was mentioned by multiple parties as

a particularly important tool for both homes and businesses. This would be beneficial for

education, healthcare and other vital areas. In addition, participants recognize the hidden costs

for area residents to live, especially for those who cannot afford a car, because the area’s

underfunded public transit system limits route options, leading to fewer riders and less funding.

Participants mentioned a number of areas in which ARC can improve or make the application

process easier. Most of these concerns related to the application process, where ARC’s basic

agency requirement tied to federal procurement regulations can present challenges. At times,

grantees have a difficult time finding a logical agency to serve as their basic agency.

Understaffed state agencies have a hard time helping due to paperwork and other issues tied to

the combination of federal and state procurement rules. That being said, ARC received positive

reviews for the new online application system, quick turnaround, flexibility, and customer

service. With Al Feldstein’s retirement, participants are greatly concerned about ensuring that the

25

state can hire a new program manager. They hoped that she or he will bring a strong local

knowledge and will proactively work to develop a strong relationship with regional stakeholders.

Meeting Attendees

Bill Atkinson, Maryland Department of Planning

Matt Diaz, Allegany County Economic and Community Development

State Senator George Edwards, District 1, Garrett, Allegany, and Washington Counties

Paul Edwards, Mayor of Garrett County

Al Feldstein, ARC/ Maryland Department of Planning

Nil Grove, Allegany County Public Schools

Scott Hamilton, Appalachian Region Commission

Shawn Hershberger, City of Cumberland Development Office

Joe Hoffman, Frostburg State University

Sonny Holding, Congressman John Delaney’s Office

Ann Jacobs, Senator Ben Cardin’s Office

Linda Janey, Maryland Department of Planning

David Jones, Allegany College of Maryland

Janice Keene, Evergreen Heritage Center Foundation

Rick MacLennan, Garrett College

Jay Oliver, City of Cumberland

Vic Rezendes, Allegany Arts Council

Cindy Sharon, Garrett County Economic Development

Anne Shepard, Hagerstown Community College

Kostas Skordas , Appalachian Region Commission

Chris Sloan, Allegany Arts Council

Elizabeth Stahlman, City of Frostburg

Robin Summerfield, Senator Ben Cardin’s Office

Courtney Thomas, Allegany County HR Development Commission

Guy Winterberg, Tri-County Council for Western Maryland

26

Mississippi ARC Focus Group Report

On October 15th

, 2014 key ARC stakeholders in the state of Mississippi met to discuss the

impact of ARC investments in their communities. The Mississippi Development Authority

helped to organize the meeting that was hosted by the Community Development Foundation in

Tupelo, Mississippi. Participants were asked to give their input on several broad issues

including:





Overall ARC investments, particularly related to support for the Planning and Development

Districts (PDDs), are seen as vitally important to the communities they serve, and this is

especially true for the most rural communities. Additionally, the flexibility and consistency of

ARC funding as making an important contribution to Appalachian Mississippi’s rural and

distressed communities.


Mississippi has focused much of its past and current ARC funding on infrastructure development

programs. Participants value the flexibility and broad parameters of ARC funding that allow

local stakeholders to use their local knowledge to structure their efforts so that they best meet

their unique challenges. ARC funding for the state’s PDDs is particularly important to these

efforts, as it allows the PDDs to provide services to communities in a consistent, reliable, and

integrated fashion. Participants praised the responsiveness of their ARC representatives,

especially during emergency situations. For example, ARC funding supported one PDD’s GIS

staff, which in turn allowed them to provide a detailed assessment of the areas affected by

devastating tornadoes. One participant suggested that the ARC acronym should stand for “active,

reliable, and caring.”

Participants noted the value of being able to learn about ARC investments and strategies in other

regions, and this knowledge allowed them to better craft their own strategies and metrics for

success. They also stated that the ARC requirement to create community wide action plans helps

them to prioritize and plan for future regional investments. Planning and technical assistance is

particularly important for many small and rural communities that lack resources and capacity.

ARC funding in Mississippi helped create the Appalachian Community Learning project—a self-

help, results-based approach to community and economic development. This popular program

has helped provide seed money for various community projects, including after school programs,

farmers’ markets and high school student career recruitment.

27

Small ARC investments can prove vital for moving larger projects forward, as they can provide

gap financing, seed funding for pilot projects, or contributions to larger projects. ARC funding

often provides the initial infrastructure or business assistance investment in an area, which can

lead to securing larger private investments in the future. For instance, ARC invested in industrial

pads as part of an industrial land development project in Panola County. These investments

contributed to a company deciding to build in the Region soon afterwards because the county

had a site readily available. As another example, ARC funding for water tank projects in

Yalobusha County have recently led to three major company expansions in that area.


Several participants offered examples demonstrating the importance of early ARC investments.

During the early 1980’s, the Mississippi Forestry Commission was able to use ARC funding to

participate in the federal Forest Legacy Program. This ongoing ARC funding investment has

returned millions of dollars to both the private and public sectors. Other notable early ARC

investments contributed to the Red Hills/Mississippi Lignite Mining project in Choctaw County,

which has been one of that region’s major economic drivers. Similarly, ARC investments

contributed to the National Hills Heritage Area, an important regional cultural resource.

The state has used ARC funding for a wide range of infrastructure projects related to

transportation, water and sewage, civic/community centers, communications, natural resource

conservation, and health care. Participants emphasized the major impact ARC investments, such

as local access roads and water and sewage lines, have had in drawing businesses to the Region.

In addition to these kinds of infrastructure projects, ARC has funded a large number of smaller

industrial infrastructure projects contributing to industrial parks, incubators, and spec and

industrial buildings that have collectively had an outsized impact on the Regional economy.

ARC funding for infrastructure improvements has been especially vital for rural and distressed

counties that do not receive enough tax revenue for funding even minor infrastructure upgrades.

Funding from the program has gone toward not only building infrastructure, but also

consolidating and coordinating regional infrastructure systems, like different water systems.

Funding has also been used for some major infrastructure projects, including the highway

Interstate-22 in northern Mississippi. Many of the infrastructure investments such as sewer and

water line and access road have led to many small investments, rather than large investments by

major businesses. Participants noted that infrastructure investments through programs like Main

Street Batesville in Batesville, MS can help municipalities quickly increase their tax revenue due

to the influx of several new small businesses in an area newly served by infrastructure.

Participants noted the great value of ARC funding for technology infrastructure projects,

including telecommunications infrastructure and Enhanced 911. The latter is especially

important due to the Region’s frequency of tornados. ARC also helped fund MEGAPOP

(Mississippi Economic Growth Alliance and Point of Presence), a partnership between the

28

Mississippi Economic Growth Alliance and Telepak Networks to deliver advanced broadband

telecommunications services. ARC funding also helped the Northeast Mississippi Planning and

Development District partner with Blue Mountain Community College and Northeast

Community College to further advance the Region’s broadband capacity.

ARC funding has been particularly important for initiating workforce development programs.

ARC provided gap funding so the state could match a grant from the Carl D. Perkins Vocational

and Technical Education Act, which the state has used to create several workforce development

programs and educational institutions. In 2006, Mississippi received an ARC construction grant

related to Hurricane Katrina, which helped them serve about 1,900 people and leverage close to

$1 million in addition to ARC funding over three years. Noxubee and Clay Counties then started

a construction skills program, which proved vital for retraining workers after a major plant

closing in 2007 in West Point. The program has also been used for retraining ex-offenders from

Noxubee Country Correctional Facilities, which has been “life changing” for graduates. ARC

investments also supported an industry partnership between Itawamba Community College and

various industry representatives to establish a mobile welding lab and other training programs to

help meet their manufacturing training needs.

Participants noted the major return on investment they have experienced from using ARC

technology grants for small workforce training related projects, such as mobile science labs,

software equipment purchases and community college training programs. ARC funding has also

helped them create a mobile career aspiration lab to inform high school students about careers in

manufacturing, and an interactive conference system to support their training activities.

Moving forward

ARC investments have helped to spur investment and address many development challenges in

Mississippi’s Appalachian communities. In spite of this, there remain many enduring pockets of

poverty through the Region and there are challenges yet to be addressed. A few participants

stated that it was difficult to meet ARC funding job creation requirements for projects intended

more for quality of life improvements. Participants also noted the need to maintain the flexibility

of ARC funding, as that flexibility (unlike many other funding sources) allowed them to

effectively respond to their region’s many critical development challenges.

In addition to maintaining many of the current ARC investments, participants noted several other

ongoing and emerging priority areas. Because much of the infrastructure in the Region was put

in place during the 1960’s and 70’s, participants asked for support in funding physical

infrastructure replacement projects. Participants also asked for increased funding for road, water

and sewer infrastructure projects, especially highway building. Additionally, there was particular

interest in expanding and strengthening the broadband infrastructure. All of these emerging

areas point to the oft noted need to generally improve the Region’s quality of life to retain

existing residents and attract new ones. This is especially true for young workers that have left

29

the Region. In addition, participants noted the importance of bridging the gap in employment for

workers who are between projects, so that the Region can retain highly skilled workers.

Meeting Attendees

Mike Armour, MDA/ARC Regional Office, Tupelo, MS

Phylis Benson, Golden Triangle Planning and Development District, Starkville, MS

Robert (Bob) E. Borton, Mayor – City of Macon, Macon, MS

Spencer Brooks, Golden Triangle Planning and Development District, Starkville, MS

John Byers, Three Rivers Planning and Development District, Pontotoc, MS

George Crawford, Golden Triangle Planning and Development District, Starkville, MS

Joseph P. Dodson, Golden Triangle Development LINK, Starkville, MS

Steve Hardin, Mississippi Development Authority, Jackson, MS

Larry Hart, Mayor – City of Water Valley, Tupelo, MS

Kyle L. Jordan, Office of Congressman Harper, Starkville, MS

Nancy Knight, Former ARC Director, Tupelo, MS

Mindy Maxwell, Office of Senator Cochran, Columbus, MS

Kawana McCary, East Central Planning and Development District, Kemper County

Jamie McCoy, Northeast Mississippi Planning and Development District, Booneville, MS

Sue Moreland, Appalachian Regional Commission

Hank Moseley, Office of Congressman Harper, Starkville, MS

Dr. Mabel Murphree, Office of Congressman Nunnelee, Former ARC Director, Tupelo,

MS

William (Boo) Oliver, Noxubee County – Board of Supervisor, Macon, MS

Larry Otis, Former ARC Director, Starkville, MS

Sandra Perkins, MDA/ARC Regional Office, Tupelo, MS

Drew Robertson, Office of Senator Wicker, Tupelo, MS

David P. Rumbarger, Community Development Foundation, Tupelo, MS

Dr. Raj Shaunak, East Mississippi Community College, Starkville, MS

Susan Shedd, Mississippi Development Authority, Jackson, MS

Sonny Simmons, Panola Partnership, Batesville, MS

James Williams, Itawamba Community College, Tupelo, MS

30

New York ARC Focus Group Report

On December 8th

, 2014 key ARC stakeholders in New York State met to discuss the impact of

ARC investments in their communities. The New York Department of State helped to organize

the meeting that was hosted by the Southern Tier East Regional Planning and Development

Commission at the Doubletree by Hilton Hotel Binghamton. Participants were asked to give their

input on several broad issues including:





Overall, there was great enthusiasm for ARC investments, as it is one of the few programs that

afforded them the ability to address their unique regional and local needs. Participants noted that

ARC funding was vital for providing seed funding to move bigger projects or funding pilot

projects that allowed communities to test innovative new ideas. Importantly ARC has also been

instrumental in helping communities—in part through its support of the Region’s Local

Development Districts (LDDs)—build their capacity to respond to both new and persistent

challenges. They also appreciated the stability of the program over the past several decades and

particularly how the federal-state-local collaboration allowed them the flexibility to address

challenges that required creative responses.


In many places throughout Appalachia, the impact of ARC funding can be found in the hard

infrastructure projects pertaining to water, sewer and roads. While similar investments have been

made in New York State, the state has never been one of the largest recipients of ARC funding.

As a result, ARC investments in the state have often focused on a different set of issues but

ARC’s impact on the Region remains evident. For instance, past ARC investments supported the

creation of social welfare and child development programs that are still in operation today.

ARC has also been a leader in supporting new development ideas. For example, ARC funded

many of the early planning grants related to broadband deployment and those plans allowed the

Region to get a jump on installing what has become a vital piece of infrastructure. The range of

ARC-supported projects underway in New York State demonstrates how this flexible funding

source can be used to address a wide array of regional challenges. New York State uses its ARC

funding for several purposes including seed funding, to pilot innovative projects, to help build

community capacity, and to promote regionalism.

ARC investments have allowed New York State to seed programs that seek to address key

regional challenges. Within the area of healthcare, for instance, ARC investments seeded social

31

service and child development programs that are still in operation today. It has been used to fund

healthcare-related programs such as a mobile cancer screening unit that since 2009 has screen

12,000 people. ARC funds have also seeded the establishment of an accelerated nursing

curriculum at Hartwick College that will allow graduates to complete their program earlier and

more quickly to begin to meet the Region’s need for nurses.

ARC investments have also allowed New York State to pursue innovative pilot projects in

emerging areas of economic development. For instance, ARC investments have supported Finger

Lakes ReUse’s deconstruction program, which is a one -of -a kind program in upstate New York.

This program helps deconstruct homes and buildings, or refurbish computers, so that many of the

materials are reused rather than creating additional waste for landfills. These deconstruction

projects also provide workforce development opportunities for workers, as they gain practical

experience in the construction and other technical trades.

New York State is also attempting to leverage its significant agricultural assets for economic

development. ARC has assisted this effort through several pilot projects. For instance, ARC has

helped to support the Groundswell Center for Local Food and Farming. Working with partners

like the Cornell Cooperative Extension and the New York Department of State Office of New

Americans, Groundswell is a 10 Acre Farm Incubator that provides support, resources, and

training for new farmers. These services may range anywhere from basic farming techniques to

English as a Second Language for farmers. In doing so, it hopes to contribute to a more

sustainable food system.

ARC investments have also been used to create support for producers of craft food and

beverages through funding creating the Hartwick Center for Craft Food and Beverage. In

partnership with Hartwick College and Brewery Ommegang, ARC funding will contribute to

staff support and equipment that will provide testing, business development and education for

small breweries, wineries, distilleries, and other craft food producers. These activities have

grown in upstate NY, and these services will make it easier for these enterprises to retain and

grow their employment.

In addition to these pilot projects, ARC investments have been instrumental in promoting

regional efforts. For instance, ARC funding in conjunction with a New York State Local

Government efficiency grant helped underwrite a planning project that examined the water

systems in northwest Chautauqua County and see how eight different local governments could

work together to create a more efficient and integrated water system. ARC investments have also

supported less traditional economic development efforts like the Career Opportunities in Rural

Education (CORE) program in Otsego County. This program has helped to promote career

awareness among students in multiple school districts and start a conversation between schools

and businesses about what students need to succeed. ARC funding allowed the Milford School

District to hire a coordinator that helps to facilitate and sustain the conversation and activities

32

that occur between the various regional partners. Programs like this have helped to give a new

regional vision for school districts that do not always think regionally.

ARC investments have also been critical in building the capacity of communities throughout

New York State’s Appalachian counties. This is most evident through its support of the New

York State’s Regional Planning and Development Boards. This funding allows the RPDBs to

better assist their communities by underwriting some of the costs involved in grant writing,

project development or complying with state and Federal guidelines. Similarly, ARC funding

offsets some of the costs they incur to provide planning and support services like the use of

Geographic Information Systems (GIS). This GIS capacity has allowed the RPDBs to map water

and sewer systems or the Region’s broadband network. This information is a vital input to

crafting more regional solutions to these challenges. ARC involvement has also allowed New

York State communities to both access and share best practices not only throughout Appalachian

New York (e.g., the planner’s roundtables), but throughout the entire region as well. This

planning support has also been vital for the Regions because it has allowed them to strengthen

their proposals to their respective regional economic development councils, which in turn has

made them more competitive for state economic development funding.

Moving forward

Looking to the future, the participants were in general consensus that ARC investments in the

Region were an important source of funding and should continue. As noted above, ARC

investments help spur innovative approaches to solving regional development challenges.

Participants did note that there were several areas where ARC might want to consider placing its

attention in the future.

Issues pertaining to sustainability and addressing information related to climate change were

noted as an area that requires creative thinking for addressing a multi-faceted problem. This not

only means funding innovative programs like Finger Lakes ReUse, but also looking for other

ways in which to reduce the environmental impact of economic development activities. In a

somewhat related manner, participants also noted the need to find better local and regional

approaches to storm water run-off and resiliency planning. Like many other parts of the ARC

region, this region has been severely impacted by flooding and preparing for and responding to

these events may be another area meriting greater ARC attention.

Another challenge facing rural regions is public transportation. New York State’s rural areas

make people car dependent. While mobility services are available in places for the aged and

elderly, this is less the case for workers. As a result, workers lacking reliable personal

transportation are at a real disadvantage in finding work opportunities. ARC funding might be

used to better understand this issue and fund practical solutions.

33

For all the reasons mentioned above (seed funding, pilot project opportunities, capacity building,

region building) participants remain enthusiastically supportive of ARC funding and the

program’s structure. Even though the funding is less than it has been in the past, it remains a vital

to addressing the Region’s challenges. The flexibility of ARC funding allows New York State’s

Appalachian communities to do more with less, and it is an important tool for leveraging

additional funding opportunities. It not only helps fund innovative pilot projects, but its

contributions to the Region’s planning capacity makes the communities in New York State’s

Appalachian communities better able to respond when new opportunities present themselves.

Meeting Attendees

Maggie Arthurs, Hartwick College

Diane Cohen, Finger Lakes ReUse

Frank Evangelisti, Broome County Planning

Carlena Ficano, Hartwick College

Joanna Green, Groundswell Center

Jen Gregory, Southern Tier East Regional Planning and Development Board

Erik Miller, Southern Tier East Regional Planning and Development Board

Dan Neff, Appalachian Regional Commission

Mark Pattison, New York State Department of State

Carolyn Price, Town of Windsor

Liz Rickard, Milford Central School

Jack Salo, Rural Health Network SCNY

Kevin Stevens, Milford Central School

Joanne Tobey, Bassett Healthcare Network

Marcia Weber, Southern Tier Central Regional Planning and Development Board

34

North Carolina ARC Focus Group Report

On July 11th

, 2014 key ARC stakeholders in the state of North Carolina met to discuss the impact

of ARC investments in their communities. The North Carolina Department of Commerce helped

to organize the meeting that was hosted by the High Country Council of Governments in Boone,

North Carolina. Participants were asked to give their input on several broad issues including:




Current and emerging issues that might motivate additional, future investment.

Overall ARC investments, particularly related to support for the Local Development Districts

(LDDs) and water and sewer projects and local food systems, are seen as vitally important to the

communities they serve, and this is especially true for the most rural communities. Additionally,

the flexibility and consistency of ARC funding and services were cited as being critical to

meeting the needs of rural and distressed communities. The participants also noted the ARC

programs will have more significant impacts in their communities in the future with a more

explicit focus on the return of investment.


Participants noted ARC funding has played a crucial role in North Carolina’s Appalachian

region. Support for the Local Development Districts (LDDs) was seen as one of the most

important elements of ARC’s efforts in North Carolina. Relative to many other states, North

Carolina devotes more of their ARC funds to their LDDs. This funding allows the LDDs to

provide planning services and assistance with grant writing and project development for many of

their more rural communities. Several participants mentioned ARC investments in the

community planning has increased local jurisdiction’s capacity in project management and fund

raising. In addition, ARC projects are seen the catalyst for communities to work together.

Without this funding, the LDDs would be less able to provide consistent and reliable service to

their smaller and more distressed communities. Due to this funding, it was noted that the LDDs

in the western part of the state were in many instances, like writing CDBG grants, able to

provide a greater level of service than their rural counterparts in eastern North Carolina.

Relative to many other forms of federal funding, North Carolina’s ARC funding is relatively

small. However, ARC funding can provide a critical gap funding for a number of regionally

important projects. This funding ensures that projects get completed, or enables communities to

leverage other forms of needed funding. These investments have shifted over time, and while

North Carolina continues to use ARC funds for water, sewer and other large infrastructure

projects these investments are increasingly being used to support efforts related to local food

systems, education and workforce development, and entrepreneurial development among others.

35

ARC investments often provide important early funding which can have important ancillary

benefits. One good example is the Home of the Perfect Christmas Tree in Mitchell County. ARC

provided resources that helped to modernize a sewer line in Spruce Pine. This project laid the

foundation for the establishment of the Home of the Perfect Christmas Tree, which provides a

facility for local crafts people and small businesses to sell their handmade products. Since the

project was started in 2003, 60 individual small businesses – many are owned by crafts people

who lost their jobs in the furniture and manufacturing industries due to outsourcing in the past

decades – have been created. Proceeds and a portion of the royalties from the product sales are

used to fund scholarships at the local high school. ARC investments have also been used to

support other entrepreneurial support efforts. For instance, ARC investments contributed to the

Piedmont Angel Network that ARC has helped fund. The Piedmont Angel Network has invested

in 23 companies since 2002 with a primary focus on the life sciences, technology, software, and

advanced materials fields.

North Carolina has also used ARC funding to grow the local food systems in its Appalachian

region. ARC’s support has been particularly vital for small and independent farms to grow and

expand. For instance, ARC, along with other North Carolina organizations such as North

Carolina Golden LEAF Foundation and North Carolina Rural Economic Development Center,

funded the Foothills Pilot Plant, a small scale slaughtering and processing facility serving

independent growers of poultry and rabbits. Foothills Pilot Plant is the only USDA inspected

small-animal slaughter facility in North Carolina.

North Carolina’s ARC investments have also been utilized to retain some of the Region’s larger

businesses as well. For example, ARC funding supported renovating a major water pipe line in

Wilkesboro, NC to meet increased demand in water from a large food company (Tyson Foods).

With this ARC funding, the community was able to leverage more financial resources for this

project. These investments were an important reason the community was able to retain over 200

jobs.

Impact of Past ARC Investments

North Carolina’s ARC investments have shifted over time. Past ARC investments were focused

on a wide range of traditional economic development projects related to water and sewage,

transportation, and community facilities. These investments were helpful in filling critical gaps,

often to support the Region’s manufacturing sector which has historically driven the Region’s

economy. Given the sharp declines in the textiles and furniture industries and the lack of large

new manufacturing projects, the focus of North Carolina’s ARC investments has somewhat

shifted.

While ARC investments continue to go into infrastructure projects (e.g. water, sewer, access

roads), these investments have become more diverse over time. North Carolina’s ARC

investments now are directed toward projects that address issues related to entrepreneurship,

36

local food systems, and community planning. This transition of ARC investments in North

Carolina from traditional economic development projects to less tangible projects is largely due

to declines in traditionally competitive industries such as furniture and manufacturing and more

limited resources. As a result, there are fewer opportunities to develop these kinds of projects.

Participants provided examples of several past ARC projects that were critical to the

development of their communities. For instance, combined with investments from other sources

such as the U.S. Economic Development Administration and North Carolina Rural Center, ARC

funding supported building the Granite Falls water tower in Caldwell County. This water tower

was a critical element of much subsequent commercial and residential development. The Hot

Springs Health Center in Madison County is another ARC supported effort that has had lasting

impact. This health center was initially built in the early 1970s and since then has served as one

of the primary medical and healthcare providers for Madison County and its surrounding

counties.

Moving forward

ARC investments have played a critical role in major economic development efforts in North

Carolina’s Appalachian region. All participants noted ARC’s continued support was important to

their communities. They also wished to see ARC funding and services remain flexible,

consistent, and predictable going forward. This was especially important for the support for the

LDDs. As participants noted, ARC’s future investment in community planning is critical for

LDDs to improve their staff capacity and build sustainable models for project management in

longer term. In addition, many participants emphasized ARC should expand its investments to

help LDDs implementing their plans and fulfill the entire planning process.


ongoing and emerging priority areas, most of which are related to improving the Region’s

quality of life and competitiveness. Almost all participants agree ARC expanding the reach of

the Region’s broadband infrastructure was an increasing priority moving forward. Last mile

broadband is particularly challenging for many of the Region’s more isolated areas. Broadband

infrastructure was viewed as foundational for other initiatives related to local food systems,

entrepreneurship, or the delivery of rural healthcare. Healthcare-related issues were another

identified issue requiring greater attention. This effort will not only improve access to basic

healthcare such as proximity to urgent care centers and general practitioners but also stimulate

economic growth in distressed region.

There was also a consensus among the participants that ARC should increase its investments in

local food systems, particularly in North Carolina’s rural communities. For instance, the

Foothills small animal pilot plant has proven successful and more help would be needed to allow

it to serve more small animal producers. ARC investments might also be used to support the

37

Regional livestock market, or craft food and beverage producers in order to create more

opportunities for local growers and producers.

The participants also noted the future ARC investment should place priority on supporting

education and workforce development in distressed regions. Future ARC investments might help

fund projects like the Spring Creek Literacy Project. This is an ongoing effort to help girls and

young women from rural communities of Hot Springs, Laurel, and Spring Creek gain the skills

they need for success in high school and beyond. As in other states, participants appreciated how

ARC investments allow local communities to address this diversity of challenges and think it is

important that these programs continue in a manner consistent with the past.

Meeting Attendees:

Dee Blackwell, Western Piedmont Council of Governments

Richard Canipe, High Country Council of Governments

Kristy Carter, ARC Regional Planner, NC Department of Commerce

Kelly Coffey, High Country Council of Governments

Olivia Collier, ARC State Program Manager, NC Department of Commerce

Matthew Dolge, Piedmont Triad Regional Council

Mickey Duvall, High Country Council of Governments

Jim Edwards, Isothermal Planning and Development Commission

Sarah Graham, Southwestern Commission

Sherry Long, Western Piedmont Council of Governments

Ken Noland, High Country Council of Governments

Ryan Sherby, Southwestern Commission

Danna Stansbury, Land of Sky Regional Council

Gary Steely, Piedmont Triad Regional Council

Phil Trew, High Country Council of Governments

38

Ohio ARC Focus Group Report

On November 14th

, 2014 key ARC stakeholders in the state of Ohio met to discuss the impact of

ARC investments in their communities. The Governor’s Office of Appalachia helped to organize

the meeting that was hosted by Zanesville Community College in Cambridge, Ohio. Participants

were asked to give their input on several broad issues including:





Overall ARC investments are valued by members of the local community and are seen as an

important resource for the community moving forward. Meeting participants noted the

importance of Local Development District funding to building community capacity throughout

the Region. Additionally, it was noted that the ARC federal-state-local model allowed Ohio’s

Appalachian communities not only respond to traditional economic development challenges, but

also to ongoing and emerging development challenges in areas such as healthcare and workforce

development.


As in many states, investments in the Local Development Districts were cited as one of the

important uses of ARC funds. With diminishing budgets for local governments, these

investments allow LDDs to provide consistent services for local governments that lack capacity.

As a result, LDDs can assist local governments with activities such as grant writing and project

development. This administrative funding also allows Ohio’s Appalachian LDDs to provide

other services like GIS, community planning, and data analysis for their communities. Providing

and building this kind of community capacity ensures that small, rural communities have better

access to resources, and can at least keep pace with other communities. Extending these kinds of

basic services to underserved areas was a common theme repeated by the participants.

ARC funding also plays several important pieces of the funding puzzle. Communities have used

ARC funding to fill funding gaps in projects to ensure that they are completed. More often,

however, ARC funds are used to leverage additional funding and resources. One participant

noted that ARC investments often gain up to 10:1 leverage. In an era of scarce resources, the

ability to pull together a variety of funding sources is crucial to completing most projects.

A keyword for ARC impacts in Ohio is diversity. ARC funding has been used toward a variety

of efforts ranging from workforce development to water and sewer expansion to growing

broadband access. All of these efforts are intended to improve quality of life, economic

development efforts, and job retention. This diversity of issues reflects the flexibility afforded by

39

the ARC federal-state-local partnership model that allows communities to create unique

solutions to local problems. For instance, health and wellness issues related to substance abuse,

obesity and other issues related to poverty present critical challenges to the Region’s

development. ARC funds allowed the Lawrence Economic Development Corporation to conduct

a feasibility study for a medical wellness center in Lawrence County. Raising funds had been a

challenge because the facility does not qualify as either a hospital or educational institution.


Similar to many other ARC states, basic infrastructure investments typified early ARC

investments. Water lines, sewage systems, and highway systems have been typical projects

undertaken in the Region. These basic infrastructure investments can make a large impact on a

community. For example, ARC helped fund a new wastewater treatment plant in a town that had

lost an existing employer and needed assistance to maintain existing businesses. Basic

infrastructure has been vital for key economic development and business retention projects –

FedEx brought over 750 jobs to Lawrence County partially due to the development of an

industrial park that was funded in part by ARC investments.

These kinds of infrastructure and construction projects were aided by the state’s ability to serve

as the basic agency for these efforts. When these projects had to rely on large Federal agencies to

administer these grants, the process may have moved at too inefficient a pace. Companies were

ready to create jobs in the area, but they were on a faster schedule than the local organizations’

federal partners, and these delays might cause them to move forward with their efforts in the

Region. As the state assumed this basic agency role, these projects were able to move at a

somewhat quicker pace and ensure that projects were completed more efficient manner.

These investments in the Region’s economic development infrastructure made a significant

difference in its development trajectory. However, due to more limited resources it is

increasingly difficult to provide these services and undertake these projects in communities that

are more remote and have smaller populations. As a result, ARC investments in Ohio have

shifted to fund a wider array of projects related to healthcare, workforce development/education,

and business assistance. Healthcare projects may, for instance, involve increasing access to

healthcare services by investing in telemedicine or equipping clinics.

Similarly, ARC investments have strengthened the Region’s education and workforce

infrastructure. For example, Zanesville Community College was once just a business and

industry training center, but it has now been transformed into a more comprehensive campus. A

critical link in the transformation was an ARC grant that helped build a state of the art science

lab. This development paved the way for a fundraising campaign and building expansion. ARC

funding also helped the college expand its welding program in support of the Region’s

manufacturing sector. Other efforts have been made to support entrepreneurial and business

development opportunities. For instance, ARC funding has helped to leverage local private and

40

foundation money for export promotion programs for family-owned businesses and youth

development programs. All of these programs are important for changing the culture of the

Region from one often typified by dependency and instead create one based on self-sufficiency.

Potential future investments

Moving forward, the ARC Ohio focus group attendees expressed an interest to expand workforce

and entrepreneurial development efforts in their communities. The community college system

was mentioned as a possible source for new leadership training opportunities and workforce

development. Focus group participants were also uniformly interested in changing the culture of

the Region by improving education, health outcomes, and self-sufficiency/entrepreneurship.

Workforce development was a recurring theme among participants, in both specific industries

and general issues related to culture and basic education. Medical wellness will continue to be an

issue in the area, and investments in drug prevention, nutrition, and more will help both quality

of life and business retention and expansion, as this is a workforce development issue.

Participants were also concerned about youth retention and attraction. They believe that quality

of life and amenities are vital to convincing young people with potential to stay in the area. The

area’s relative isolation is a recurring theme and traditional remedies for addressing this isolation

(e.g., highways) needs to be mixed more with newer solutions (e.g., broadband).

Participants also sought to find ways to further growth the Region’s local craft industries, such as

those producing locally made furniture. Focus group participants believe that entrepreneurship

and small firms are important, as they would change the character of the Region from relying on

company relocation to the Region for employment to self-sufficiency. Participants also sought

greater investment in business incubators and other investments in entrepreneurship that might

help revitalize downtown areas, diversify the economy, and expand businesses. In addition,

participants would like to see a greater focus on the logistics needs for cooperative multi-county

businesses (e.g., supply chain networks for furniture makers). Entrepreneurship will be a focus

moving forward, as participants recognize that small communities have a difficult time attracting

large businesses.

Participants note that money continues to be tight, and that the needs that they are currently

meeting will continue to be issues. Some participants would like to see more small capacity-

building projects in communities, which was something ARC had funded in the past. A number

of participants also mentioned the need for flexibility in their revolving loan fund requirements.

One organization’s fund has essentially turned into a grant program due to program limitations,

and they would find it helpful, for example, to be able to change interest rates. In addition, some

believe that equity is more of a need for businesses than loans, and they are interested creating

more connections for equity investors.

41

Meeting Attendees

Bret Allphin, Buckeye Hills-Hocking Valley Regional Development District

Cara Brook, Foundation for Appalachian Ohio

Paul Brown, Zane State College

Peggy Carlo, County Commissioner Ashtabula County

Misty Casto, Buckeye Hills-Hocking Valley Regional Development District

Greg DiDonato, Ohio Mid-Eastern Governments Association

Bill Dingus, Lawrence Economic Development Corporation

Ray Eyler, Holmes County

Karen Fabiano, ODSA Community Services Division

Senator Lou Gentile, Ohio Senate

John Hemmings, Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission

Ralph Kline, Lawrence County Community Action

John Molinaro, Appalachian Partnership for Economic Growth

Mary Oakley, Ohio Development Services Agency

Joy Padgett, Governor's Office of Appalachia

Ron Rees, Corporation for Ohio Appalachian Development

Molly Theobald, Appalachian Regional Commission

Viviane Vallance, Lawrence Economic Development Corporation

Perry Varnadoe, Meigs County

Jeannette Wierzbicki, Ohio Mid-Eastern Governments Association

Jason Wilson, Governor's Office of Appalachia

Mike Workman, Contraxx Furniture

Kathy Zook, Eastgate Regional Council of Governments

42

Pennsylvania ARC Focus Group Report

On July 9th

, 2014 key ARC stakeholders in the state of Pennsylvania met to discuss the impact of

ARC investments in their communities. The Pennsylvania Department of Community and

Economic Development helped to organize the meeting that was hosted by SEDA-COG in

Lewisburg, Pennsylvania. Participants were asked to give their input on several broad issues

including:





Overall, ARC investments, particularly related to support for the Local Development Districts

(LDDs) and enterprise development programs, are seen as vitally important to the communities

they serve, and this is especially true for the most rural communities. Additionally, the

flexibility, consistency and predictability of ARC funding and services was cited as being critical

to meeting the needs of rural and distressed communities.


In the past, Pennsylvania’s ARC funding focused on infrastructure projects, but over the past few

decades has transitioned to more of a service delivery role, especially through the Local

Development Districts (LDDs). Participants noted that moving from narrowly-focused

infrastructure projects to more service delivery has allowed the program to have a broader impact

throughout the Region. Consequently, Pennsylvania’s current ARC funding supports several

broad issues including funding for LDDs, Enterprise Development, supplementing and

complementing larger projects with targeted investments, and providing seed funding for small,

often pilot projects.

Most participants identified support for the LDDs as the most valuable role that ARC plays in the

state’s Appalachian region. ARC funding allows the LDDs to provide consistent and reliable

service to the communities that they serve. LDDs can provide local communities with a range of

planning services related to numerous disciplines (e.g., economic development, workforce

development, transportation, tourism, environmental, etc.). ARC funding allows LDDs to do this

in a consistent, reliable, and integrated fashion. This technical assistance is particularly important

for many small and rural communities that lack resources and capacity. Several participants cited

the critical ability of LDDs to serve as an interagency connection between different service

providers and local jurisdictions within the Region. LDDs also connect local residents and

businesses with resources at the state, regional and federal levels, as well as private resources.

43

Pennsylvania has also focused much of its ARC funding on enterprise development programs.

Specifically these funds complement other funding sources in support of three primary areas—

government procurement, export financing and business financing. The increased usage of ARC

funding for enterprise development has led to small seed financing packages and assistance that

help businesses expand their markets and internal capacity, which in turn advances the Region’s

business retention and job creation efforts. Participants value the flexibility and broad parameters

of ARC funding that allow the structure of projects to be formed by the local stakeholders that

have a stronger understanding of the issues facing the Region.

Small amounts of ARC funding can also prove vital for moving larger projects forward. ARC

funding for local access roads has been especially important. For instance, an access road project

has supported the creation of a new Life Science industrial park in Mifflin County that will

include a health center and create more than 100 jobs. Similarly, funding for an access road has

furthered the development of the recently opened Anthracite Outdoor Adventure Area in

Northumberland County. Built on abandoned coal mining land, this park provides opportunities

for hiking, camping, horseback riding and other recreational activities. Additionally, ARC has

supported a technology project at the park that tests new ways of using cell phone coverage to

increase safety and security for visitors.

ARC funding has also been used to seed smaller, often pilot projects. Participants mentioned

several examples of these smaller projects including the New Berlin Energy Independence

Project. This 3-year project, funded by ARC and other partners (including PPL Electric Utilities,

Bucknell University, and the Pennsylvania Department of Community and Economic

Development among others) sought to achieve greater energy independence in the small rural

community of New Berlin, PA (pop. 900). This project allowed the community numerous ways

to conserve energy, and these measures have gone on to save New Berlin $200,000 in energy

costs annually. The project resulted in the publication “Energizing Small Communities” which

serves as a guide for other communities. The ability to pursue this kind of project speaks to the

overall flexibility of ARC funding.


Pennsylvania’s current usage of ARC funding with its emphasis on supporting the LDDs and

enterprise development funding differs from its usage during the 1970s and early 1980s. This is

due in part to a relatively smaller amount of available funding. In the past, Pennsylvania used

ARC funding for a wide range of infrastructure projects related to transportation, water and

sewage, communication, recreation, business assistance, community facilities, and healthcare.


In Lackawanna County, ARC provided the first funding in 1978 for an access road to the

Montage Mountain ski resort, which was completed and opened in 1984. Participants appreciated

not only this initial project investment, but also ARC’s unwavering commitment throughout the

44

long public hearing process. Combined with four or five later investments, ARC eventually

invested about $3 million into the project. Opening up this land for development eventually led

to more than $500 million in private investment and four to five thousand jobs, as well as spin-

off development in the area, such as golf courses, retail, housing, hotels, a stadium and service

businesses.

In 1983, ARC provided a grant for a feasibility study on whether a public-private initiative could

sustain rail in the Region, which lead to the formation of the SEDA-COG Joint Rail Authority,

an 8-county rail organization. The SEDA-COG Joint Rail Authority has invested over $100

million in the Region for providing rail service, including refurbishment and capital upgrades,

and extending new service to industrial parks. This investment has “created a whole different

outlook in some of those towns” because of the current increase in the use of freight rail traffic

over trucking. The World Bank recently used the SEDA-COG Joint Rail Authority as an

example of successful regional rail model in a manual (prepared by Cambridge Systematic) for

developing countries on models transportation initiatives.

In addition to these kinds of infrastructure projects, ARC has funded a large number of small

infrastructure projects throughout the Region, such as Brownfield redevelopments and health

centers, which have collectively had an outsized impact on the Regional economy. Participants

noted that ARC’s early funding for rural healthcare facilities and career and technical education

facilities have made a lasting impact and contributed to the overall health and capacity of the

Region’s people.

Moving forward

ARC investments have helped to spur investment and address many development challenges in

Pennsylvania’s Appalachian communities. In spite of this, there remain enduring pockets of

poverty through the Region and there are challenges yet to be addressed. To this end, there was a

consensus among the participants that the most vital future ARC investments should place

priority on maintaining the support for the LDDs. LDD support was seen as providing one of the

greatest returns on ARC-related investments. Increasing investments in broadband access was

seen as another critical investment area that fits well within ARC’s overall mission. Participants

also noted the need to maintain the flexibility of ARC funding, as that flexibility (unlike many

other funding sources) allowed them to effectively respond to their region’s many critical

development challenges.


ongoing and emerging priority areas. Toward the top of this list was the need for increased

support for expanding and strengthening the broadband infrastructure. Broadband infrastructure

was viewed as foundational for other initiatives related to local food systems, entrepreneurship,

or the delivery of rural healthcare. Healthcare-related issues were another identified issue

requiring greater attention. This ranged from ensuring adequate access to basic healthcare such

45

as proximity to urgent care centers and general practitioners to reducing the incidence of obesity,

diabetes and substance abuse among the Region’s population.

Participants also noted the importance of supporting projects that address issues related to quality

of life or quality of place. These types of projects may take on several forms. For instance, they

may address water resources or sustainable development issues. They may incorporate projects

like the Susquehanna Greenway Partnership and the multi-county Pennsylvania Wilds project

that build on the Region’s natural assets for recreation, tourism and other local business

opportunities. All of these emerging areas point to the oft noted need to generally improve

quality of life within the Region in order to retain and assist current residents, as well as attract

new residents, especially young workers that have left the Region.

Meeting Attendees

Kevin D. Abrams, Northern Tier Regional Planning & Development Commission

Kim D. Barnes, Northern Tier Regional Planning & Development Commission

Jeffrey K. Box, Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance

Eric M. Bridges, North Central Pennsylvania Regional Planning & Development

Commission

Lisa Davis, Pennsylvania Office of Rural Health

Neil Fowler, Pennsylvania Department of Community & Economic Development

Jill Foys, Northwest Pennsylvania Regional Planning & Development Commission

Ned Goucher, Northwest Pennsylvania Regional Planning & Development

Commission

Jim Hassinger, Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission

Yvonne Lemel, Pennsylvania Department of Community & Economic Development

Elizabeth Lockwood, SEDA-Council of Governments

Teri MacBride, PPL Electric Utilities

Julie Marshall, Appalachian Regional Commission

Robert Postal, Mifflin County Industrial Development Corporation

Tom Pellegrini, Northeastern Pennsylvania Alliance

Deborah L. Prosser, Southern Alleghenies Planning & Development Commission

Dennis E. Robinson, SEDA-Council of Governments

Lorri Shaver, Pennsylvania Department of Community & Economic Development

Lew Villotti, Southwestern Pennsylvania Commission

Jerry S. Walls, SEDA-COG Joint Rail Authority Board

46

South Carolina ARC Focus Group Report

On December 17th

, 2014 key ARC stakeholders in the state of South Carolina met to discuss the

impact of ARC investments in their communities. The South Carolina Department of Commerce

helped to organize the meeting that was hosted by the South Carolina Appalachian Council of

Governments (ACOG) in Greenville, South Carolina. Participants were asked to give their input

on several broad issues including:





Overall, ARC investments have been important in spurring economic development throughout

the upstate South Carolina region. ARC has been an important source of funding for rural

projects that do not always have a guaranteed return on investment. Participants were also

especially grateful for the assistance that they receive from their local development district, the

state department of commerce and ARC’s Washington-based staff.


South Carolina has focused much of its ARC funding on infrastructure development programs.

Participants value the flexibility and broad parameters of ARC funding that allow the structure of

projects to be formed by local stakeholders. They highly valued the open communication channel

and technical assistance provided by ACOG, especially for learning about public and private

grant opportunities, and assistance with grant writing.

ARC funding is often used as simultaneous match funding for grants from other federal agencies,

such as the U.S. Economic Development Administration or the USDA Rural Development

agency. Participants noted that the largest challenges for accessing ARC funding are lining up

partners, getting match funding, and understanding the complex regulations that accompany

applying for and administering federal grants. ACOG brings invaluable expertise for helping

applicants navigate these challenges and forging partnerships between different economic

development stakeholders in the Region. ACOG’s provision of grant information has created a

“true support system for smaller communities” in the Region.

Participants appreciated the helpfulness of ARC staff in Washington, as well as the ARC

program manager with the South Carolina Department of Commerce. This assistance was

especially appreciated during the application process, where participants noted their appreciated

for the willingness to provide feedback on how to improve their applications and projects. This

type of communication helps create an “open forum for South Carolina”. By serving as the basic

agency for construction projects that are partially funded by ARC, the state has also helped to

47

make the administration of these projects relatively easier and more efficient. Participants also

noted the value of being able to learn about ARC investments and strategies in other regions,

especially through peer-to-peer networking at ARC workshops. For instance, one participant

mentioned that attending an ARC-sponsored workshop on local foods in West Virginia proved

very helpful to their efforts locally. This kind of information sharing allows stakeholders to see

what types of projects work in other regions and provides them with ideas for additional ways

they can use ARC funding in South Carolina. However, some noted that they would like to see

additional opportunities to share best practices between different regions.


Since the start of the ARC program in South Carolina, the state has used ARC funding for a wide

range of projects related to workforce training, economic and industrial development, food

systems, education, healthcare, water and sewer systems, and transportation. ARC funding for

infrastructure improvements has been especially vital for rural and distressed counties. One

participant noted that ARC funding was integral to the upstate South Carolina region.


In addition to basic infrastructure, ARC provided funding support for many economic and

workforce development projects in the Region. Greenville Technical College received

construction and equipment funding for multiple workforce training related projects, including

the Quick Jobs with a Future, allied health, dental worker, and truck driver training programs, as

well as campus expansion projects. Tri-County Technical College has received funding from

ARC for welding laboratories. Participants noted that the Quick Jobs with a Future proved

especially beneficial for training dislocated workers during the recent downturn. One participant

stated that without ARC funding for workforce training programs at the Region’s technical

colleges, large manufacturing plants like BMW would not have chosen to locate in the Region.

ARC funding for infrastructure in underserved communities has led to economic and industrial

development in areas that otherwise would not have received that investment. Participants were

particularly appreciative of being able to use ARC funds for these kinds of rural projects, as

other federal grant programs generally do not invest in areas not already served by infrastructure.

Moreover, few funding sources are able to be relatively speculative in nature, but ARC is one of

them. Specific examples in the Region include road improvements to a publicly funded industrial

park in Pickens County that have resulted in thousands of jobs. Other examples are water lines

along Highway 5 and providing infrastructure that supported the creation of a regional outlet

mall on Highway I-85.

Education grants from ARC and others helped ACOG develop various technology driven

business development tools for regional businesses. These include business planning technical

assistance and InfoMentum, a GIS-based data and mapping service that allows investors to

generate maps and reports on demographic and market conditions, as well as access a database of

48

industrial sites and buildings for the ACOG region. ACOG is also developing a new technology-

driven project to support entrepreneurship in the Region, and a website for taking counties

through steps to become more business friendly, which is currently being piloted by three rural

communities in the Region.

ARC funding in South Carolina has evolved from mainly meeting the basic needs of rural

communities to funding more of a mix of projects, such as tourism and other quality of life

improvements. Multiple recent ARC projects in the Region have focused on food systems

planning, including a small animal facility program in Greenville, a planning technology project

at Tri-County Technical College, and business plan development assistance for communities

looking to become “farm-to-table” enterprises. ARC has also provided assistance with

identifying gaps in their regional food system infrastructure.

Moving forward

Participants also noted that continued ARC investments will play an important role in

diversifying the Region’s economy. Its flexibility can fund projects related to quality of life and

tourism that often do not have any obvious sources of funding. These projects are not only

important for creating jobs and attracting visitors and residents to the Region, but they also help

establish a new regional identity. ARC investments can be helpful in developing the Region’s

local food system or promoting attractions related to the Region’s Revolutionary War history.

Several participants noted the success of the Greenville Health System Swamp Rabbit Trail, a

Rails-to-Trails, multi-use trail system in Greenville County, South Carolina. Not only has this

trail drawn tourists to the Region, but it has provided a framework that has allowed communities

throughout the Region to connect their attractions and make the Region a more attractive

destination. Other communities in the Region are following the Swamp Rabbit Trail model. For

instance the “Blueways” (i.e., Water Trails) river recreation initiative in Spartanburg and Upstate

Forever connects water attractions with tourism and environmental efforts.

Participants also noted that ARC investments might be useful for downtown redevelopment

initiatives. Communities like Gaffney hoping to replicate the downtown revitalization success of

Greenville through investing in streetscape improvements and taking part in the National Main

Street Center redevelopment process. Like many ARC investments, these initiatives touch upon

many development challenges. A collection of nice downtowns can make the Region a tourist

destination. They also provide an attractive environment for new residents or entrepreneurs, and

denser development can improve the public transportation infrastructure, which is relatively

underdeveloped in the Region.

Participants are also looking for further economic and workforce development assistance through

entrepreneurship training and after school education, especially for building the Region’s

Information Technology (IT) workforce. ARC could also help expand the Region’s IT capacity

49

through broadband infrastructure development projects, as there remain many gaps in broadband

coverage.

In order to market the Region globally, South Carolina is looking to attract more foreign direct

investment and developing export plans through public-private partnerships like the Upstate

South Carolina Alliance. Although participants were very interested in exploring opportunities

for ARC investment needs, they also suggested increased ARC support for increasing

collaboration between economic development partners on new regional initiatives. This was

especially true for smaller, rural communities.

Meeting Attendees

Jill Francisco, South Carolina Department of Commerce

Jane Hall, South Carolina Appalachian Council of Governments

Tracy U. Martin, Town of Blacksburg

Michael McInerney, South Carolina Department of Commerce

Scott Park, Greenville County

Dirk Reis, South Carolina Appalachian Council of Governments

David Shellhorse, South Carolina Appalachian Council of Governments


Brian Swords, Tri-county Technical College

James R. Taylor, City of Gaffney

Elizabeth Varga, Greenville Technical College

Caroline Wilson, South Carolina Appalachian Council of Governments

50

Tennessee ARC Focus Group Report

On May 16th

, 2014 key ARC stakeholders in the state of Tennessee met to discuss the impact of

ARC investments in their communities. The Tennessee Department of Community and

Economic Development helped to organize the meeting that was hosted by the East Tennessee

Development District in Alcoa, Tennessee. Participants were asked to give their input on several

broad issues including:





Overall there was enthusiastic support for ARC programs and investments. ARC is seen as

vitally important to the communities it serves, and this is especially true for the most rural

communities. Additionally, the consistency and predictability of ARC funding and services was

cited as being critical to meeting the needs of rural and distressed communities. Participants also

noted that they appreciated that the majority of ARC funding ends up “in the ground” in the form

of, for instance, actual water and sewer lines, and not lost to substantial administrative costs.


Participants noted that ARC funding remains a relatively small part of their region’s overall

funding portfolio, but they all noted that it nevertheless plays a critical role in getting projects off

the ground. For the participants, ARC funding was a tool for addressing core economic

development challenges that require medium and long-term thinking. This funding often plays an

important seed role—like installing water and sewer lines—that provide the foundation for later

development. Without these initial investments, communities would find it more difficult to

secure additional investment and activity.


because there remains tremendous pockets of need, which are often isolated pockets of need. As

one participant noted, “ARC means more for rural counties than you can imagine.” Meeting the

match requirements for many potential funding sources can often prove challenging for the most

distressed counties. ARC’s favorable match requirements therefore make it a crucial funding

source for many smaller communities.

For instance, Pickett County is Tennessee’s least populous county with just over 5,000 residents.

One participant noted that ARC was one of that county’s only hopes to fund infrastructure

projects because they lack the resources to meet the match requirements needed to access other

forms of infrastructure funding. Another participant noted that there would be no public water

51

system in rural Cocke County if not for ARC. Similarly, ARC funding has been important to

Hancock County which has the lowest percentage of public water access in Tennessee.

Participants also view the relatively small amount of funding provided to the Local Development

Districts as important for rural communities. Rural counties often lack the staff capacity and

resources to meet all of their planning needs. The LDD funding provided by ARC allows the

Local Development Districts to provide consistent and reliable planning and government

services to their rural counties. In doing so, rural counties can access these services without

having to potentially rely on more expensive consultants.


At the time of its launch, ARC sought to bring the Appalachian Region to parity with the rest of

the country. While the work is far from finished, the focus group participants thought that

Tennessee’s Appalachian communities had made meaningful progress toward fulfilling that goal.

ARC investments allowed many rural Tennessee residents access to clean water and sewer,

renovated schools in order to keep them open, and helped to put in place an infrastructure to

support industry that created local employment opportunities.

While never a large component of the total funding package, this funding—both in the past and


offered examples demonstrating the importance of early ARC investments. For instance, in 1986

ARC investments helped to fund the installation of a new sewer line that helped to prepare the

current site for Pellissippi State Community College in Knox County. At the time, that $500,000

investment looked small, but Pellissippi State now serves over 11,000 students and is a core

component of the Region’s higher education and workforce development systems. More

recently, ARC investments were instrumental in getting the Kingsport Center for Higher

Education facility off the ground. Kingsport has traditionally been underserved by higher

education institutions, and this facility made it possible for Kingsport resident to access higher

education from six different institutions in one location.

Several other residents noted that ARC investments in water and sewer lines allowed for the

establishment of industrial corridors that have made economic development possible. This was

certainly the case in Meigs County—a rural county without interstate access. ARC funding

allowed for the creation—and over time expansion—of water and sewer lines to industrial sites.

Without this infrastructure, the county would have limited opportunities to build its industrial

base. Similar stories were shared by representatives from other rural locations like Polk County.

The initial ARC investments made later investments possible.

ARC investments in highway infrastructure are also viewed as crucial as they provide important

connections. This is particularly true for rural, mountainous counties where roads are limited in

number, difficult to build, and expensive to maintain. In Polk County, several rock slides along

52

US 64 caused travelers to face an 80 mile detour. This can make rural living even more

expensive and difficult. ARC Highway funds are therefore seen as important to expanding and

strengthening the Region’s highway infrastructure.

Moving forward

Participants were all adamant about the importance of ARC funding. As a result, they would like

to see current investments continued, particularly as they relate to infrastructure-related

investments such as water, sewer and highways. In addition to these ongoing investments, the

participants had general consensus about expanding investments in several other emerging areas.

For instance, developing the ARC Region’s human capital was viewed as increasingly important.

These kinds of investments may take several forms. It may involve supporting efforts to provide

workers with in-demand skills such as ARC’s support for Motlow State’s new Mechatronics

program. These investments may also speak to general health and wellness efforts, such as

increased support for substance abuse programs.

Investing in downtown redevelopment was another potential emerging focus area. Creating

places where people want to live and spend time was seen as a vital condition for success in

other strategies related to tourism, entrepreneurship and others. Increasing investments in

broadband access was another critical investment area that fits well within ARC’s overall

mission. Broadband supports many other priority areas whether it related to local foods and agri-

tourism or support for entrepreneurship and home-based businesses.

Meeting Attendees

Morris Baker, City of Kingsport

Terry Bobrowski, East Tennessee Development District

Brooxie Carlton, Tennessee Department of Community and Economic Development

Hoyt Firestone, Polk County Executive

Lorie Fisher, South Central Tennessee Development District

Donald Hurst, Cocke County Partnership

Garland Lankford, Meigs County Mayor

Paula Lovett, Tennessee Department of Community and Economic Development

Leigh McClure, Southeast Tennessee Development District

Michelle Price, Upper Cumberland Development District

Ken Rea, First Tennessee Development District

53

Virginia ARC Focus Group Report

On September 18th

, 2014 key ARC stakeholders in the state of Virginia met to discuss the impact

of ARC investments in their communities. The Virginia Department of Housing and Community

Development helped to organize the meeting that was hosted by the Roanoke Valley-Alleghany

Regional Commission in Roanoke, Virginia. Participants were asked to give their input on

several broad issues including:





Overall ARC investments are seen as vital to the Region’s Appalachian communities,

particularly those in the Virginia coal fields. ARC funds have been vital to laying the foundation

for future development, leveraging key regional assets to spur new economic activities and

ongoing health and workforce development challenges. In addition, investments in the Local

Development Districts (LDDs) affords these communities access to the planning and support

services they need to take advantage of opportunities as they arise. The flexibility, consistency

and predictability of ARC funding and services was cited as being critical to meeting the needs

of rural and distressed communities.


Virginia uses its ARC funding to spur investments in building community capacity and in both

traditional and non-traditional economic development activities. As in many states, the

participants agreed that ARC’s support of the local development districts was a vitally important

element of the program. This funding—which for some of the more rural LDDs is an important

source of non-local funding—allows LDDs to provide consistent planning services to rural

communities throughout western and southwestern Virginia. These services might take the form

of grant writing or more time consuming activities like project development. Without these

services, many rural communities would be at an even greater disadvantage when it comes to

leveraging additional funding.

ARC investments are rarely the sole source of funding. They can either serve as seed funding for

an innovative project or it may represent the closing money needed to ensure that a project

moves forward. The participants noted that ARC funding often can be used to attract other

funders, such as the Economic Development Administration, Virginia Tobacco Commission,

Foundations or private funds. ARC interest in a project can provide a signal to these other

funders that the project is a ‘real’ project that is viable and has the ability to provide regional

impact. For instance, in Danville, ARC funding helped bring foundation and private funds to the

table for several projects.

54

The flexibility of ARC funding has allowed Virginia communities to undertake this wide range

of projects that do not neatly fit into typical funding programs (e.g., USDA Rural Development,

U.S. Economic Development Administration). This has been particularly true for efforts

pertaining to cultural and heritage-related tourism. The Region’s culture represents one of its

great place-based assets. To better leverage these assets, ARC has invested in programs like the

Crooked Road. The Crooked Road connects 19 counties, 4 cities and dozens of smaller

communities in a regional effort to make southwest Virginia a destination for heritage music

enthusiasts. ARC provided the ‘glue’ money that binds regional actors (including the 5 LDDs)

around these efforts and it also helped to complement other funding sources like the Virginia

Tourism Commission, The Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development, the

National Endowment of the Arts, and several foundations, among others. In doing so, Virginia

has used its ARC funding to create a structure around which other funders can invest, and

communities can turn their individual attractions into a larger regional destination. The Crooked

Road is therefore emblematic of how the larger federal-state-local ARC model can work in an

era of scarce resources.

Infrastructure projects related to water and sewer and roads remain important, and the impacts of

past ARC investments in these areas are wide- ranging. One participant noted that is difficult to

travel far within southwest Virginia and not see a project that had been supported by ARC. The

ARC impact on the Region is everywhere, and this is particularly true in the western Virginia

coalfields. Participants noted several highway projects that have created opportunities in western

Virginia. For instance, when completed the Corridor Q project (US Route 460) will connect

Pikeville, KY to Interstate 81 in Christiansburg, VA. The improvements on this route have

already facilitated better access to the interstate for many rural communities. Similarly, creation

of four lanes on U.S. Routes 23 and 58 (which intersect in Duffield, VA) has allowed these roads

to become more significant arteries that can create greater development opportunities. Similar

investments in water and sewer systems have also created development opportunities for

Appalachian Virginia.

The administration of these large infrastructure projects can be costly and inefficient. Virginia

has been a leader amongst Appalachian states by assuming the role of the basic agency for its

construction projects. In doing so, the state manages the construction contracts rather than larger

Federal agency like the Department of Housing and Urban Development or the Department of

Transportation. This often makes the contract administration more efficient and projects are

completed earlier thereby reducing the risk of costly delays. A number of other states are now

following Virginia’s lead in adopting the basic agency role.

Moving forward

Meeting participants confirmed the federal-state-local model used by ARC has worked well for

Virginia’s Appalachian region. They found the feedback that they received from both ARC and

55

the Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development to be very beneficial in terms

of developing projects and making sure they were structured in a way that would enable a

successful outcome. Moreover, they mentioned that Virginia assessed projects not just on a year

to year basis, but with a somewhat longer time horizon. A project may not fit with Virginia’s

current ARC funding program, but that project may be revisited in subsequent years.

Moving forward, Virginia will continue to use its ARC funding to support key infrastructure

projects related to water and sewer or road access. However, the state is also making investments

that will help lay the foundation for a new economy that is less dependent on traditional

manufacturing and natural resource extraction. Doing so requires addressing a variety of current

and emerging challenges facing Virginia’s Appalachian region.

The diversity of these responses can be illustrated by several projects undertaken by the West

Piedmont Planning District Commission’s service area (Patrick and Henry counties, and the city

of Martinsville). This region, which joined the ARC region in 2009, has used ARC funding to

address a variety of development challenges. For instance, ARC investments contributed to the

completion of the New College Institute which is a center for higher education that provides the

Region’s citizens easier access to college and university education. In partnership with the

GENEDGE Alliance (Virginia’s Manufacturing Extension Partnership affiliate), ARC

investments have supported the delivery of E3 (Energy, Environment, Economy), a program that

helps the Region’s manufacturers adopt more sustainable and efficient manufacturing processes.

In the future, Virginia will continue to use ARC investments to support many other efforts to

create a new economy. For instance, investments designed to expand the Region’s broadband

infrastructure have contributed to this goal in several ways. Expanded broadband access has

allowed the Region to attract more retirees to the Region because it is one of several basic

amenities required for those retirees who have many options for their retirement destination. It is

also vital to the Region’s entrepreneurial ecosystem as it creates more small business

opportunities. This is best illustrated in Galax, VA where investments in efforts like the

Crossroads Institute have helped the Region overcome the loss of 2,000 furniture jobs by

assisting in the creation of 1,200 new small businesses.

ARC funding has also been used to support the provision of healthcare throughout the Region

and this is another area where the expansion of the Region’s telecommunications infrastructure

can have wide ranging impact. For instance, Virginia was one of the first states to fund

broadband when it funded the installation of fiber for the Haysi Clinic. This kind of connectivity

is particularly important for delivering health services in rural areas. Virginia’s ARC funds have

also been used to fund the St. Mary’s Health Wagon that brings basic health care services to

rural, under-served, high poverty areas in southwest Virginia.

56

Meeting participants were overwhelmingly positive about ARC programs, but there were a

couple of issues that they thought required some additional consideration. While not a

widespread issue, several participants did note that the change in county economic status from

year to year can cause some issues in project development and planning. For some smaller,

distressed counties raising matching funds is an ongoing challenge, so a change in economic

status that requires them to raise more can pose challenges. This is particularly true for counties

looking to develop more long-term projects.

Moreover, the change in economic status may not reflect actual progress in the Region. For

instance, a decrease in unemployment may mask underemployment and people falling out of the

labor force altogether. In addition, participants noted that within Virginia’s Appalachian

counties—even the more prosperous counties like Botetourt County—there remain a number of

persistent pockets of poverty. Given that funding is often prioritized by county economic status,

using ARC funding to address these pockets of poverty remains incredibly difficult.

Meeting Attendees

Jim Baldwin, Cumberland Plateau Planning District Commission

Patrick Burton, New River Valley Planning District Commission

Leah Manning, West Piedmont Planning District Commission

Duane Miller, LENOWISCO Planning District Commission

William Shelton, Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development

Wayne Strickland, Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission

Matt Weaver, Virginia Department of Housing and Community Development

Ed Wells, Roanoke Valley-Alleghany Regional Commission

57

West Virginia ARC Focus Group Report

On August 7th

, 2014 key ARC stakeholders in the state of West Virginia met to discuss the

impact of ARC investments in their communities. The West Virginia Development Office helped

to organize the meeting that was hosted by the West Virginia Economic Development Authority

in Charleston, West Virginia. Participants were asked to give their input on several broad issues

including:

ARC-sponsored programs use in their region and community,




Overall there was enthusiastic support for ARC programs and investments. ARC is seen as

vitally important to the communities it serves, and this is especially true for the most rural

communities. Additionally, the consistency and predictability of ARC funding and services was

cited as being critical to meeting the needs of rural and distressed communities. Participants also

noted that while ARC investments have been enormously impactful to the state, the most

significant legacy of ARC was not necessarily financial related. “It changes the culture,”

participants agreed. ARC helped create a culture of collaboration across agencies and levels of

government, between the private, public and non-profit sectors, and in communities throughout

West Virginia.


Participants noted that ARC funding plays a critical role in getting projects off the ground and as

a tool for addressing core economic development challenges that provide the foundation for later

development. ARC investments continue to help fund a wide array of projects across West

Virginia including water and sewer, education, healthcare, business access to capital via

revolving loan funds, workforce training and community development. Without these

investments, communities would be unable to get these projects started or completed.

Several participants noted the importance of small-scale investments. For instance, one program

underway includes the state’s Flex-E-Grant program. This program provides small grants, up to

$10,000, that may be used to support local leadership, civic engagement and capacity building

efforts. These grants foster civic entrepreneurship with leadership training for residents of West

Virginia's ARC-designated distressed counties so they become more effective participants in the

civic life and leadership of their communities. This approach contributes to the development of

the community and the community members. Flex-E-Grant is a joint effort of the West Virginia

Development Office (WVDO), the Appalachian Regional Commission (ARC) and the Claude

W. Benedum Foundation. The collaboration of WVDO, ARC, and the Benedum Foundation is

helping to address some of the state’s healthcare needs.

58

ARC funds contribute to this effort through investments that focus on improving access to oral

healthcare. The number of days missing work because of bad oral health is actually a workforce

issue, and West Virginia falls below the national standard for oral health. The Benedum

Foundation representatives indicated that the ARC investment has been crucial to this effort to

improve oral health across the state.

Additionally, ARC investments have supported many important state initiatives to develop

communities and grow the economy. For instance, ARC has been heavily involved with the

state’s Main Street Program as one of the main funders since the creation of the program. ARC

also helped fund a new and incumbent worker training program for existing manufacturers. This

program provides cross training for manufacturing workers. West Virginia has an aging

workforce and is looking to work on replacing retirees in manufacturing with younger workers.

ARC hired the trainers to teach managers how to write job descriptions, standardize the

production process, and also reimburse companies with costs related to new equipment training.

The state’s international trade office was also initially started and supported by ARC. The

flexibility of ARC funding made these types of investments possible.


because there remains tremendous pockets of need, that are often quite isolated. Helping to form

this perspective were not just singular projects but the continuing commitment to fund the local

planning councils, which are on the front lines to make things happen in West Virginia. The

funds provided to the Local Development Districts are important because rural areas often lack

the staff capacity and resources to meet all their planning needs. The LDD funding provided by

ARC allows for consistent and reliable planning and government service to these rural counties.


At the time of its launch, ARC sought to bring the Appalachian region to parity with the rest of

the country. While the work is far from finished, the focus group participants thought that West

Virginia’s Appalachian communities had made meaningful progress toward fulfilling that goal.

ARC investments allowed many rural residents access to clean water and sewer, and helped to

put in place an infrastructure to support industry that created local employment opportunities.

ARC has also played a leadership role in West Virginia in bridging non-traditional economic

development issues such as local food, healthcare, and alternative energy with traditional

economic development activities.

Past ARC investments in West Virginia have worked in building the foundation and capacity to

provide needed services to residents. Among the most basic, water and sewer investments have

been an important part of ARC investments over the years in West Virginia, necessitated in

many instance by the impact of the state’s mining industry on water quality. But ARC has done

much more; for instance, Appalachian ambulance service was supported by ARC back in 1970s.

ARC also invested significantly in building career centers in West Virginia, while many

59

community health clinics would not exist today if not for ARC funding. As one participant

summarized, ARC has been involved with all the major impactful projects in West Virginia in

the past few decades.

While never a large component of the total funding package, ARC funding—both in the past and


offered examples demonstrating the importance of early ARC investments. For instance, ARC

funded the planning for the Bakers Island community park project. The community got in total a

half million dollar investment for that project to build a parking lot and other facilities for that

park. This park is now the key community recreational facility and amenity. Leveraged ARC

investments have also been used to create revolving loan funds to offer area businesses access to

needed capital. Several of these loan funds have turned small initial ARC investments into

multi-million dollar capital funds for the ongoing benefit of the local economy.

ARC investments in highway infrastructure are also seen as crucial past investments as they

provide important connections. This is particularly true for rural, mountainous counties where

roads are limited in number, difficult to build, and expensive to maintain. This can make rural

living even more expensive and difficult. ARC Highway funds are therefore seen as important to

expanding and strengthening the Region’s highway infrastructure.

Moving forward

Participants would like to see current investments continued, particularly as they relate to

infrastructure-related investments such as water, sewer and highways. In addition to these

ongoing investments, the participants had general consensus about expanding investments in

several other emerging areas. For instance, developing the ARC Region’s human capital and

health and wellness efforts, was viewed as increasingly crucial. Expanded broadband access was

mentioned by several participants as a particular area of investment that needs continuous

attention from ARC. Broadband potentially supports many other priority areas whether it related

to local foods and agri-tourism or support for entrepreneurship and home-based businesses.

Continuing to invest in downtown redevelopment was another important focus area for ARC

investments. Creating places where people want to live and spend time was seen as a vital

condition for success in other strategies related to tourism and entrepreneurship and others.

Participants also encouraged ARC to continue to take leadership in helping the state move new

initiatives forward such as small business incubators. ARC brought this topic to the table. It

helped to find mentors and innovation ideas for small businesses. The use of Flex-E-grant

funding to help develop the local food system was given as another example of ARC bringing

new ideas to the table. The local food projects happened because of a handful of grants and

leadership from ARC.

60

All of these emerging areas point to the oft noted need to generally improve quality of life within

the Region in order to retain and assist current residents, as well as attract new residents,

especially young workers that have left the Region. One participant mentioned the findings from

a study on household wealth and financial security in Appalachia which ARC helped fund. In

the coming years, an estimated $45 trillion is transferring from the older generation to younger

generation. How can we prepare to make sure the money stays and benefits West Virginia

communities? Participants also noted the need to maintain the flexibility of ARC funding, as

that flexibility (unlike many other funding sources) allowed them to effectively respond to their

region’s many critical development challenges. They also encouraged ARC to remain the

“Voice of Rural” going forward.

Meeting Attendees

Sharon Adams, West Virginia Development Office

James Bush, West Virginia Development Office

Becky Ceperley, Greater Kanawha Valley Foundation

David Cole, Region 1-Planning and Development Council

Michele Craig, Region 2-Planning and Development Council

Ralph Goolsby, RHGoolsby Consulting

Jeff Herholdt, West Virginia Division of Energy

Mary Hunt, Benedum Foundation

Monica Miller, West Virginia Development Office

WD Smith, Region 4-Planning and Development Council (retired)

Kim Tieman, Benedum Foundation

Geary Weir, Webster County Economic Development Authority

61

Development Districts Association of Appalachia (DDAA)

ARC Focus Group Report

On July 28th

, 2014 the Board of the Development District Association of Appalachia (DDAA)

met to discuss the impact of ARC investments in their communities. This meeting was held at

the Lafayette Hotel in Marietta, Ohio. Participants were asked to give their input on several

broad issues including:





The discussion focused both on the impact of ARC investments in the participant’s region, but

also on its importance to their organizations. ARC funding allows Local Development Districts

(LDDs) to provide a wider array of services, but also provide more reliable and consistent

service to their more rural and disadvantaged communities. ARC investments have also been

important in creating a community of stakeholders in their region and play a role in building

consensus about regional economic and community development. The flexibility afforded by

ARC funding allows local stakeholders the ability to implement programs that therefore align to

regional and state priorities.


Although a relatively small portion of overall ARC funding, support to the Region’s Local

Development Districts is a vital element of ARC’s overall investment portfolio. The participants

all spoke of ways in which ARC funding advances their organizations’ economic and community

development goals. LDD support allows these organizations to better serve local governments by

providing important technical assistance such as grant writing, project development and grant

administration. Without these services, many local governments would be unable to undertake

these activities in an effective or affordable manner. Several participants from states that do not

provide extensive resources to LDDs noted that the ARC funds were instrumental for them to

provide a basic level of services given their current staffing levels.

The funding that ARC provides to LDDs also allows them to strengthen their internal capacity.

Participants from numerous states noted that their organizations’ ability to provide regional GIS

(Geographic Information Systems) support was a direct consequence of their ARC funding. In

addition, ARC-sponsored events provide opportunities for LDD staff to obtain the professional

development and training necessary to do their jobs. This training may include guidance on how

to develop competitive federal grant proposals or how to undertake data-driven economic

development planning. ARC also provides LDD staff members the opportunity to learn more

about emerging issues such as building local food systems or engaging local youth.

62

In addition to strengthening internal organization, the LDD directors also noted that ARC plays a

vital role in building the capacity of the broader communities that they serve. This additional

support allows LDDs to provide education and training to their region’s local governments to

improve their ability to address critical local issues. It also enables them to educate and prepare

their local elected officials, so that they can make more informed decisions. These issues have

been particularly important in rural localities, where local government and elected officials are

stymied by loss of young people that has hurt the region’s capacity to transition toward a new

generation of leaders.

ARC funding also allows the LDDs to play an important role in promoting regional approaches

to development challenges. Its ability to leverage other sources of public, private and

philanthropic resources allows LDDs to assemble coalitions that can address broader regional

challenges. One participant noted that these coalitions are built not just by bringing partners

together for one project, but through hundreds of various ARC-sponsored projects over many

decades. As a result, these ongoing investments have created a community of ARC stakeholders.

This cumulative effect creates a platform for more easily achieving regional consensus on the

nature and direction of regional economic and community development. ARC investments and

projects can therefore provide important ‘glue’ money for promoting regional efforts. One

participant noted that in his state there was a trend toward the ‘deregionalizing’ of economic

development efforts in the areas outside of the ARC region, while in the ARC region it was just

the opposite.


Participants generally agreed that many of the issues that in the past drove their region and

state’s ARC investments remained just as important today. For instance, connectivity and road

access are critical prerequisites for development, so completing the Appalachian Development

Highway System (ADHS) remains an important priority. Similarly, it has been important for

financing much of the regional economic development infrastructure such as water, wastewater,

industrial parks and access roads.

However, ARC funding has been reduced significantly from what it was in ARC’s early history

and these relatively more limited resources change the nature of ARC-funded projects. While

infrastructure projects remain important, ARC investments have shifted away from large

physical infrastructure projects toward a more diversified array of development efforts. For

instance, one participant noted that their state used ARC funds to invest in the region’s health

infrastructure. In the past, this meant large-scale investments in hospitals and health clinics.

Investments in strengthening regional health systems continue, but with more limited funding

those investments now go into activities related to telemedicine or programs that expand access

to basic health services.

63

The changing nature of ARC investments was not just the result of diminished resources. In

some instances, the changing economic environment and a diminished need for newer, greenfield

industrial sites led to fewer investments in physical infrastructure and a greater focus placed on

expanding planning and technical assistance , enterprise and business development, and

workforce training. In other instances, the shifting focus reflects the priorities of the states’

governors. One participant indicated that their state had used its ARC funding to support

programs related to microenterprise development, but a change in the Governor’s office shifted

focus toward water and wastewater projects. The ability for ARC funds to reflect evolving state

priorities is important to its overall success with state and regional partners.

These shifting priorities can also impact the composition of a region or state’s ARC stakeholder

group. As one participant explained, the shift away from physical infrastructure projects meant

less involvement from local developers, but increased investments related to education and

workforce development brought more educators into the coalition. Bringing these entirely new

sets of stakeholders into the coalition ultimately broadens the wider ARC stakeholder

community. This ever-changing stakeholder group is one of the lasting elements of ARC’s

legacy in the Region.

Moving forward

Overall the participants noted that the consistency and reliability of ARC funding was important

to their ability to serve their region’s communities. It allows them to maintain this service and it

affords them the ability to find creative ways to successfully address local development

challenges.

There was a general consensus among participants that ARC should continue to emphasize

ongoing efforts related to infrastructure development and poverty reduction. At the same time

there remains a need to balance these efforts with emerging issues that are arising throughout the

region. For instance, representatives from Pennsylvania and West Virginia were keenly

interested in learning more about unconventional natural gas development (i.e., hydraulic

fracturing). Since these types of energy projects are significantly reshaping regional economies

in these states, there was interest in learning how to better pursue this development in a way that

avoids some of the mistakes or unintended consequences experienced by other extractive

industries.

Representatives from states such as New York and Alabama reinforced healthcare and workforce

issues as growing in importance and were looking to utilize ARC investments to expand their

efforts in those areas. Other participants were also interesting in placing greater emphasis on

other non-infrastructure issues related to workforce development, tourism development, and

growing local foods systems.

64

Meeting Attendees

Eric Bridges, North Central Pennsylvania Regional Planning and Development

Commission

Misty Casto, Buckeye Hills–Hocking Valley Regional Development District

Michele Craig, Region 2–Planning and Development Council

Jim Dove, Northeast Georgia Regional Commission

John Hemmings, Ohio Valley Regional Development Commission

Rudy Johnson, Golden Triangle Planning and Development District

Keith Jones, Northwest Alabama Council of Local Governments

Danny Lewis, Georgia Mountains Regional Commission

Leanne Mazer, Tri-County Council for Western Maryland, Inc.

Sherry McDavid, FIVCO Area Development District

Joe McKinney, National Association of Development Organizations

Erik Miller, Southern Tier East Regional Planning Development Board

Dan Neff, Appalachian Regional Commission

Steve Pelissier, South Carolina Appalachian Council of Governments

Susan Reid, First Tennessee Development District


Richard Zink, Southern Tier West Regional Planning & Development Board

65

Acknowledgements

The completion of this research project to examine the significant structural and socioeconomic

changes to the Appalachian Region since 1965 and to determine to what extent the ARC’s

economic development investments have contributed to these changes could not have been

accomplished without the assistance of many talented individuals working in concert.

The project team included: from the Center for Regional Economic Competitiveness in

Arlington, Virginia: Ken Poole, Marty Romitti, Mark White, William Cook, Sarah Gutschow,

Brendan Buff, Randall Arthur, and Wen Sun; from the Regional Research Institute at West

Virginia University in Morgantown, West Virginia: Randy Jackson, Don Lacombe, Gianfranco

Piras, Juan Tomas Sayago Gomez, and Caleb Stair; from the Bureau of Business and Economic

Research at West Virginia University: John Deskins, Jane Ruseski, Christiadi, Eric Bowen, Brian

Lego, and Patrick Manzi.

We would also like to thank the Appalachian Regional Commission, and particularly Earl Gohl,

Kostas Skordas, Julie Marshall, and Keith Witt, for their support, valuable insights and

assistance provided over the course of this project. A special thanks as well to Ed Feser,

University of Illinois; Henry Renski, University of Massachusetts; and Troy Mix, University of

Delaware for their insights, contributions to, and review of various parts of this report.

We also very much appreciated the comments we received and the guidance provided by our

research advisory team, including: Ed Feser, Roger Stough, Amy Glasmeier, Elizabeth Mack,

Terry Clower, Nichola Lowe, Dave Peters, Matt Murray, Henry Renski, Geoff Hewings, Jim

Futrell, Jennifer Zeller, and Jim Held.

Finally, our sincere thanks to those who participated in the state meetings held throughout the

Region. Your willingness to share your experiences on the dynamics of change in Appalachia

breathed life into the data points and provided invaluable context for our analysis and findings.

Documents

Appalachia€¦ · speed have proven to be a vital foundation in addressing many other issues, including entrepreneurship development, tourism, telemedicine, distance learning, and